Note: Hutton Pulitzer threatened me with a lawsuit (again), so I have changed the headline because he objected to the use of the word "rob" due to having permission from the landowner to dig up human remains for display on his media channels.

And I thought they had given up on it. Ha! J. Hutton Pulitzer and Scott Wolter are making good on their threat to conduct hour-long discussions on each of the 39 episodes of America Unearthed. Their latest half-hearted review returned to Sound Cloud after a brief foray last time into video conferencing. This week they are discussing S01E04 “Giants in Minnesota,” in which Wolter admitted to being unable to uncover any “meaningful” evidence of giants. Wolter says that he remains open to the existence of giants but has yet to see any evidence of their existence. This conceit lasts only a few minutes.

You see, Hutton Pulitzer hasn’t figured out the art of self-promotion, so the seemingly boring episode review is actually the XpLrR organization’s incompetent announcement of a new project in which they plan to dig up (sorry… “excavate”) a presumed Native American grave for broadcast on their social media and/or streaming video outlets in order to see whether it belongs to a giant. More on that below, when the gang that couldn’t shoot straight finally got around to “announcing” their project.

First, though, Hutton Pulitzer tries to define giants, but in doing so he rather depressingly cuts them down to merely “abnormal” people of a given size that is larger than the average for a particular population. He estimates that seven feet would about do it, making the “giants” of old roughly the size of an NBA player. Pulitzer says that such heights are “larger than traditional man.”

Both Pulitzer and Wolter dismiss the idea that giants could be larger than currently recorded human sizes, and Pulitzer says that it’s “detrimental” to fringe history to falsify evidence for larger giants. The fact of the matter, though, is that “traditional” evidence for giants has been for much larger giants. The ancients spoke of skeletons of giants sixty feet or more in length (Strabo, Geography 17.3.11; Pliny, Natural History 7.16, etc.), or even as much as 300 feet (Boccaccio, Genealogia deorum gentilium4.68)! You and I know these to be the bones of fossil Ice Age mammals, but fringe historians, who cannot accept such truths, have no grounds for artificially restricting giants to their own conception of reasonable if they wish to argue that popular reports of giants should be held up as evidence.

Wolter says that he believes that the existence of large numbers of newspaper reports of giants means that at least some of the reports must be true. Further, because the bodies no longer exist, there must be a conspiracy to hide the truth. As I have discussed before, this is unlikely for many reasons, but there are several reasons such bones no longer exist as the bones of so-called giants: (a) Old, rotten, waterlogged bones crumbled into dust after being removed from the ground. The old reports describe this occurring regularly. (b) Incorrectly measured bones were correctly measured upon receipt at various museums and no longer were classified as giants. (c) Ice Age mammal bones mistaken for human were correctly classified upon receipt at museums and are no longer considered human giants. Although we do not have proof of each specific bone, we have examples of each of these scenarios occurring, with documentation.

“The only thing I can think of,” Wolter said, “is that they’ve been covered up.”

Wolter denies, too, that disarticulated skeletons can appear to be “giants” due to the separation of bones during decomposition. Wolter said this is simply “passing off” a lie. He and Pulitzer both agree that it’s “silly” to suggest that people ignorant of anatomy can make mistakes in estimating height from disarticulated bones. It’s good when they are self-refuting.

He concedes that “most” giant skeletons found in America are Native American, but he speculates that they are being covered up to hide those that are not. Wolter says that the government threatens jail time to anyone who tries to dig up human remains without permission, and he says that this is a conspiracy to prevent investigation, not just an effort to prevent grave robbing. Pulitzer concurs and asks why we have legislation to protect graves if the existence of giants were merely “outright hoaxes.” Neither man considers whether Native Americans have an interest in protecting the graves of their ancestors from the ignorant curiosity of those who would play with human remains for fun or profit.

Pulitzer accuses the “anthropological-skeptical community” of trying to “shut down” efforts of fringe historians to dug up graves. Pulitzer has apparently read my review of this episode, and he uses issues that I raise in my review as the efforts of the “skeptical community” to discredit Wolter. Pulitzer is upset, specifically, that I disapproved of the idea that dowsing rods could be used to find archaeological remains, but Wolter concedes that dowsing rods do not actually work. That is because they are completely fake and represent the ideomotor effect in action. Wolter admits that the show’s producers faked the dowsing scene in the episode to make dowsing look accurate, and his confession of blatant fakery (“disappointing” and “B.S.,” Wolter said) baffles and upsets Pulitzer. Wolter does not explain why he happily endorsed fabrication.

Pulitzer says that he and Wolter disagree with the suggestion that some “giant” skeletons are misidentified remains of wooly mammoths because they have “examined photographs” sent to them by a family of their fans and determined, based on their own extensive non-training, that the bones were human. We know from situations like Cotton Mather’s misidentification of a mammoth tooth as human, or the 1827 debacle where a medical doctor identified newly excavated bones as those of a giant before the mammoth’s tusks were uncovered, that even educated people have a hard time telling the difference. I put no faith in Hutton Pulitzer’s examination of a photograph.

According to the pair, the family who sent the photos uncovered some bones on their property and instead of reporting what they apparently believe to be human remains to the authorities (as required by law in most, but not all, jurisdictions), they instead contacted Scott Wolter.

Wolter says that he now has access to the location of those bones, a site that “archaeologists” do not “control” and which he plans to excavate alongside Pulitzer in order to unearth additional bones of giants or any artifacts associated with them. “This opportunity is really once in a lifetime,” he said. The pair said that after they received photographs of large bones, they were the ones to suggest to the senders that these were the bones of human giants, based on their own examination of the photographs. The pair did not say how large the bones supposedly are, or where they are located. Local laws vary, and not all states protect graves found on privately owned land. The two men believe that only by broadcasting the excavation can they keep the U.S. government from suppressing the find.

Wolter also announced that History commissioned a spinoff of America Unearthed called Found to debut this fall, with contributions from Michael Arbuthnot, the archaeologist who appeared in the episode under discussion. He did not provide details of the new series, but he will not be the host of it.

Wolter also eulogizes the late Richard Nielsen, whose recent passing has erased Wolter’s upset about the falling out that the two men had. A large chunk of the episode supposedly devoted to giants then becomes yet another review of Wolter’s claims about the Kensington Rune Stone.

As the podcast pushes toward its conclusion, Pulitzer wants to know why scholars refuse to admit that giants were real and that their bodies had been found as the newspapers reported in the 1800s. He suggests that giants exist today, so this should be no big deal. The issue, of course, is that the stories aren’t true, not that large sized people never existed at all. The question isn’t a philosophical objection to the occasional seven-foot-tall person but rather how we determine what is or is not true. Pulitzer, anticipating that “bloggers” will discuss his conspiracy theory, alleges that the suppression of giant skeletons is linked to the secularization of formerly biblically oriented academic institutions. After identifying the giants as Nephilim, Pulitzer added: “If the Bible mentions giants … and something’s found that lends veracity to the text of the Bible … the institution cannot acknowledge them because they may be by de facto (sic) acknowledging (the Bible).” That’s just silly. The Bible mentions many things that secular scholars recognize as true: ancient cities like Jericho and Babylon, lost gods like Dagon and Tammuz, forgotten lands like Sheba and Tarshish. How would giants—who also exist in non-Judeo-Christian myths—be any different?

Pulitzer is half right, but reverses events: Biblical ideology warped the way early scholars interpreted material, and as that ideology broke down, more accurate views emerged.

Wolter seems to disagree with Pulitzer but, not wanting to openly contradict him, allows that this might be part of the answer. Pulitzer then threatens an XpLrR video presentation on the history of Victorian giant bone discoveries as preparation for what he promises will be a broadcast of the live unearthing of a Native American grave on video to “prove” that giants existed.

I would like to compare these two clowns to Laurel and Hardy or Abbot and Costello, but that would be a grave slander to these four men. Wolter and Pulitzer are a new class of clown, with emphasis on the ass.

Reply

DS

7/29/2016 03:36:02 am

"The man does protest to much, methinks". I'm a first time reader of this site and someone that's been wading through countless books with little evidence or verifiable proof for years. However that does not stop the search that one day I will be utterly surprised and pleased. You have lost hope my friend. A man that believes in nothing is lost.Your effort of discord provides you little credibility and offers you little chance to see both sides of the argument. Good luck with future endeavours.

DS, I always love people who love to portray themselves as educated and they each post your protest quote and each time, post it historically incorrect. LOL

DaveR

8/1/2016 12:03:15 pm

You're funny. Keep using those big and fancy words because I can see how it makes you feel intellectually superior and I would feel sad if you lost that ability. Also I would just like to point out that quoting someone else to support your position is really a sign of weakness, but hey, that's just me, go on using the words of others to support your arguments.

Raparee

7/28/2016 01:31:24 pm

Desecrating graves ... are there any depths these shysters won't stoop to?

Reply

Clete

7/28/2016 05:09:15 pm

In answer to your question, the answer is no. I await when they review the episode where Scott Wolter went looking for the "Lost Dutchman Mine" in Arizona. They will both probably play dress-up as old prospectors. However, it may be difficult if they use two donkeys during the search to tell the difference between two Jackasses and Scott Wolter and Hutton Pulitzer.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/28/2016 05:37:20 pm

Dear Raparee I want to thank each and everyone of you posting on this forum as if we have committed a crime or intend to commit a crime. As many know, I authored the book on Treasure and Antiquities Laws both domestically and internationally (see link https://www.amazon.com/Commanders-Cacheology-Encyclopedia-Treasure-Artifact/dp/1619732157 ) Now the very reason I post this, is when bloggers or writers accuse people of a crime not committed or not adjudicated by a court of law, it is the classic definition of libel. Especially IF people take the story as real and begin to make personal, professional and business judgements based on such accusations. Simply put, each of you- responding to the "Announce Plans to Rob" headline posted by Jason, just slammed dunked the claims against Jason from 3 different parties, 1. Our company, 2. Scott Wolter as an individual and 3. Myself. One thing I am is patient, and we have legally notified Jason of our claims, but fortunate for us each of you as readers and your assertions on the misinformation have now set Jason fully in the legal cross hairs. We have no problem with you writing about us, our work or challenging us, but there are rules and liabilities when such irresponsible writing occurs. So Jason, best read your email.

Reply

Raparee

7/28/2016 05:59:32 pm

"Desecrating" seems to be a fairly accurate description of what you intend to carry out.

Only Me

7/28/2016 06:02:35 pm

Hutton, are you aware Scott Wolter, on his own blog, accused both the late Richard Nielsen and Professor Henrick Williams of academic fraud? Since that, too, falls under libel, have you shared the benefit of your legal expertise with your business partner?

Scott Hamilton

7/28/2016 06:09:30 pm

If there's one thing that defines great intellectual endeavors, it's legally unsound threats to sue anyone who criticizes you.

Hutton: I addressed your language concerns and explained clearly why they do not rise to the level of libel. I did not accuse you of a crime, and those commenting here are rightly concerned that you have the correct legal permissions to conduct any excavation of alleged human remains. I notice that in all of your responses here and to me personally you did not actually claim to have the correct legal permissions, which is why many here are concerned about your actions, which according to your own claims would fall under most states' private cemeteries or human remains laws.

As an "expert" on the law, you should know that comments posted to a blog are not the legal responsibility of the owner of the website, something Congress explicitly declared in the applicable legislation, so please do not make legally incorrect assertions about any commenters.

crainey

7/28/2016 07:13:34 pm

Can I get included in this too? Rob, robbers, grave robbers! What ever it takes!

ArchyFantasies

7/28/2016 07:17:17 pm

You can't sue someone over the comments that other people leave on their blog, whether or not they agree with the author or not. Jason has no control over what people say or do, and if they want to call you and your activities out because they disagree with them, that's still not on Jason. And on the topic of suing, why do you always go there? Seriously, have you ever actually successfully sued someone for not liking your ideas? It's just weird that your go-to move is to first call people names (slander) and then call into question their actual credentials (also slander) and then when that doesn't work, You threaten to use Them! How does that work in your mind?

John (the other one)

7/28/2016 09:32:53 pm

Hutton,

You and SW should sue one another for being a waste of time.

You suck.

You are either grave robbing or digging up a mastodon, either way it isn't new and you aren't qualified.

Rudyard Holmbast

7/28/2016 10:45:33 pm

"I authored the book on Treasures and Antiquities Laws..."

You're going to have to do a LOT more research before you "author the book" on defamation law. Your threats are absolutely hilarious.

E.P. Grondine

7/28/2016 11:57:39 pm

Mr. Wolters and Mr. Pullitzer -

Since neither of you have degrees in archaeology, nor in physical anthropology, your "dig" may properly be called "robbery", regardless of landowner permissions.

And of course, given your overwhelmingly strong biases, any evidence you may happen to stumble upon will essentially be useless, unless fully, and I do mean fully, documented.

While we're all here, Mr. Wolters, I seem to recall a study of the "Hooked X" presented at a conference held at Coshocton in the early 2000's. I wonder if perhaps you may be familiar with it.

E.P. Grondine

7/29/2016 12:24:37 am

After quick consideration, there are a few other points I need to add.

If your production company does not hire the services of a contract archaeology firm, any evidence you may find will essentially be useless.

I have no problem with parts of your hypothesis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQm8AC66bSE
while at the same time I have extreme problems with others parts of it.

You need to realize that even if you have a Wendigo grave, it may have been re-used by with sioux or ojibwe. Given that the grave structure is likely in either of their territories, they may also contain remains of their ancestors as well.

In any case, you will have to deal with their representatives as well.
As far as I am concerned, you are on your own in this.

Joe Scales

7/29/2016 10:21:50 am

Pulitzer/Philyaw would never open himself up to legal discovery in regard to any of his fringe ventures. Here's a good partial example of something he'd never want to respond to under oath:

List and describe in thorough detail any and all treasure you personally have discovered...

Americanegro

9/2/2016 01:05:06 am

"Dear Raparee I want to thank each and everyone of you posting on this forum as if we have committed a crime or intend to commit a crime."

Sounds like something a criminal would say.

Mike Steeves

7/29/2016 01:13:53 pm

you can call them what you want, but don't you think if this is done respectfully and like an archiological dig that it should be done to prove or disprove a long standing mystery? As far as desecrating graves, it depends on how old they are. If you could dig up my ancestors from many centuries ago to try and solve something, I would find it interesting and not freak out about it.

Reply

Raparee

7/29/2016 05:13:38 pm

Pulitzer is not an archaeologist, though. He's just some guy with a social media presence and a goofy hat. There has not been the necessary preliminary work done to justify desecrating a burial, and if someone wanted to dig up one of my ancestors in order to prove the existence of 'giants', regardless of how long they have been buried ... yeah, I'd have a problem with that, too.

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:33:53 pm

Raparee, are you under the impression that we are engaged in desecrating graves? Where did you get that idea?

Reply

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:35:57 pm

Raparee got the idea from your own Podcast.

Joe Scales

7/28/2016 01:53:23 pm

So I suppose a new television show featuring anyone that had appeared on Wolter's canceled series would be a "spin-off"? Well, I guess it would have even been a stretch for Wolter to claim that he has a new show with a new host and a new title. Anyhow, given his current association with Pulitzer/Philyaw, his descent is now complete. I seriously doubt anyone outside the fringe will ever work with Wolter again.

RIP Dick Nielsen. Considering Wolter asserted that the two of us were one and the same... I suppose my continued existence affirms great WiFi in the afterlife.

Reply

Sticker

7/28/2016 02:06:14 pm

WOAH. Oh, please, I really, really hope they don't do this. How does the idea of knowingly participating in and publicizing the disturbance/desecration what is probably a Native American burial --- how does this seem like a genuinely good idea to them? I hope they get found out and prosecuted so hard if they really end up doing this.

I once went to a meeting of what I thought was an archaeology enthusiasts' club in my area (thinking it was, you know, people interested in actual archaeology), and had the horrible realization about halfway through the meeting that I was surrounded by metal-detector enthusiasts and "amateur archaeologists" --- the kind of guys who set up a table at the local flea market to sell carefully framed but carelessly context-less bullets, shrapnel, arrowheads, etc., they dug up somewhere. I got into a casual conversation with one of them in which I revealed where I was from, and he proceeded to tell me with great enthusiasm how he had once dug up an "Indian grave" in my area. He said that he had found some kind of worked or carved stones and gave the prettiest ones to his wife. I was so creeped out by him that I didn't quite know what to say in response at the time. "Thanks for completely destroying the archaeological context of the site and illegally desecrating a Native grave for your own momentary gratification and amusement!" would have done the trick.

If his story was true, it's extra horrible because in my area, traces of the Native people that once lived here have been almost entirely obliterated by hundreds of years of farming and development, so if it had been reported and investigated properly and respectfully, this would have been an extremely important site that could have provided us all with more information on their history. The same is probably true for this site. These people who want to exploit such sites whether on private land or elsewhere have zero respect for the dead (and their descendants, who have the right to protect the remains of their ancestors), for the law, or for the public who would benefit from the information gathered from an actual professional study of the site.

I wonder if any of us can find out who these people are and where the site is.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:32:13 pm

Sticker, are you under the impression this is a native american site and that it is a grave and we are digging up such grave or committing such crimes? Where would you get an idea like this?

Reply

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:36:33 pm

Sticker got the idea from your own Podcast.

Sticker

7/29/2016 10:19:03 pm

I'm under this impression from listening to your Soundcloud episode. I think people could reasonably gather the impression that disturbing probable Native American remains and removing them from the ground is something you are planning on doing (and videotaping) from listening to what you and Scott discussed.

The idea that it's a Native American site:
Scott Wolter (to his credit) tells us that the fact that academics and others claim that alleged giant bones are Native American is "not a surprise to me, and quite frankly, many of them, if not most of them, probably are, if not all of them.” He then later reiterates that it is "understandable to assume that human remains inside of a mound in Minnesota are Native American, and they probably are," (although he adds that you’d need testing to definitively prove it). It seems reasonable to me (and evidently, to Scott) that there is a high likelihood of these remains being Native American.
Is it theoretically possible that the remains could be of a different origin (early settlers, medieval Scandinavian travelers, etc.)? Of course --- but it turns out that’s actually irrelevant. Minnesota law clearly states that human remains that appear to be more than 50 years old and have been found outside of a known cemetery have to be investigated by the state archaeologist. That's who makes the determinations as to ancestry and possible repatriation, removal, etc. The possibility of the remains having a non-Native origin does not appear to negate the legal obligation of members of the public contacting the state upon discovery so that the latter can perform an official evaluation. It isn't up to you or I.

The idea that it is a grave:
It doesn't appear to be relevant under the law whether the site is the result of a purposeful burial or someone dying alone in the wilderness and nature taking its course. What’s relevant is that the site contains human remains. You and Scott both speak about the bones in the photographs being human remains (Scott even says of one of the photographs that "there's no question it's a human bone"), so the idea that you are talking about a site involving human remains still seems to be a reasonable conclusion to me.

The idea that you are talking about potentially digging up the remains at this site:
After discussing how you believe previous evidence of giants has been covered up (by state archaeologists and others), you explain that the only way to truly confirm the existence of these remains is to “pull these bones out in this location” yourselves and document it so that people can “see them coming out of the ground as they come out of the ground.” It appears that you are planning on doing this yourselves without notifying the state archaeologist because you also mention that “this is not in your typical situation where archaeologists have control of the site; this is a site that is completely unknown.” At the end, you reiterate your apparent intentions: “We’re going to attempt to become the first team to truly do proper documentation, testing in the scientific method, and letting you see these as they are found and as they come out of the ground.” I think the idea that you are talking about going to a site that has not been reported to the state and digging up the remains yourselves is a reasonable conclusion to draw from these statements.

The idea that this may involve committing a crime:
Aside from the aforementioned obligation to let the state archaeologist deal with this type of site, it appears that taking the bones out of the ground yourselves would also be a felony:

It is a declaration and statement of legislative intent that all human burials, human remains, and human burial grounds shall be accorded equal treatment and respect for human dignity without reference to their ethnic origins, cultural backgrounds, or religious affiliations. The provisions of this section shall apply to all human burials, human remains, or human burial grounds found on or in all public or private lands or waters in Minnesota.
Subd. 2.Felony; gross misdemeanor.

(a) A person who intentionally, willfully, and knowingly does any of the following is guilty of a felony:
(1) destroys, mutilates, or injures human burials or human burial grounds; or
(2) without the consent of the appropriate authority, disturbs human burial grounds or removes human remains.”

- https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=307.08

I hope you can see how people might reasonably draw these conclusions from what you and Scott said in your Soundcloud recording.

Sticker

7/28/2016 02:11:48 pm

(I should also note that there was an actual archaeologist in charge of the club --- he was trying to direct their interests towards good. But some of the group members, man, they freaked me out.)

Reply

Jim

7/28/2016 02:13:38 pm

I can't wait for the episode where they present a bison leg bone to the President of the US proclaiming that North American giants were endowed with an impressive set of horns !

Reply

GEE

7/28/2016 02:41:38 pm

I'm smelling bullshit.. Noway this is going to Happen without going through the appropriate channels.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:31:04 pm

GEE or Gina, are you under the impression we are doing items and taking action which are not legal or through the proper channels? Where did you get such an idea?

Reply

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:37:08 pm

Gee likely got the idea from your own podcast.

Americanegro

9/2/2016 01:09:02 am

Hutton, you sound like a skull-effer. Are you a skull-effer, Hutton?

Pablo

7/28/2016 02:52:58 pm

I can see them announcing that they have found evidence of giant remains, but they cannoyt give any details because they found them on native lands... or any other (as usual) excuse.

Reply

DanD

7/28/2016 03:51:52 pm

I'll be waiting for the White Paper to be released spring of 2018.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:30:07 pm

Pablo, are you under the impression the site is on native land or a native site or grave? Where did you get such an idea?

Reply

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:37:39 pm

Pablo likely got the idea from your own podcast.

Hutton Pulitzer

7/28/2016 03:28:05 pm

LOL, I had to answer this one, from a crowd that swears they only use or display factual evidence. First Kudos to Jason for the excellent use of provocative headlines to get people to read a non-story. That is an astute use of word smithing to get eyeballs. Very well played. Now to the other less than factual crowd. For a group constantly suggesting they are educated, logical and methodical in research you sure suck up to the sanctimonious scatology put forth by Jason. You see, instead of being wanna be's and bitching and moaners, we actually run a professional business and one can bet everything we do is top notch, within proper legal allowances and with an eye on erring on the safe side. With that said, I laugh out loud at the term "grave robbers" and the attempt to bash. Sad really, the main posters now such as Gina Torresso and others are here exactly because I do great things and walk the edge. Yes, Gina sorry you could not join the Scott Wolter group - but constant haters and naysayer have their club here, and we have the truth seekers club elsewhere. But, again, KUDOS to Jason for such a great headline. I bet that doubled your readers to 20 at least and now that I have answered there will be 500% increase in comments. I know Jason, you need me and to write about Scott and I both is the only thing that drives your traffic. Great to be such a positive traffic influence on your blog.

Reply

V

7/28/2016 03:47:52 pm

Actually, I come here for the sanity in a sea of crazy, whether a post is about you or not, Putzer. And if you dig up human graves without proper permits, you are, in fact, BY DEFINITION, robbing graves. Of course, the so-called "grave" you've got it almost certainly not human remains OR a grave, but go right ahead and delude yourself. You aren't fooling anyone else.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/28/2016 04:00:35 pm

V, what you may not know is I wrote the actual course book for treasure and antiquities case law, on a state by state, and country by country basis. I am more than familiar with the laws. Facts matter. https://www.amazon.com/Commanders-Cacheology-Encyclopedia-Treasure-Artifact/dp/1619732157/

Pablo

7/28/2016 04:19:43 pm

and here is a good example of how not to address the comment of "V". Not very "professional" I should say.

Thomas

7/28/2016 05:05:40 pm

Thanks for the link to your book. The bio on Amazon is very impressive:

"As an Inventor, Pulitzer is globally one of the foremost Inventors in modern times, recognized as one of the "Top 50 Inventors in the World", and as an Author, he has published over 200 individual titles."

You describe yourself wonderfully.

Google is also a significant invention/creation. I used it to search for "Top 50 inventors in the World". Unfortunately, as useful as I thought Google was, it can only find that phrase repeated in your bios listed on Amazon and assorted blogs. Google can't seem to find you in any "top" inventors list. But, I suppose, "recognized as" can be interpreted in many ways.

Kathleen

7/28/2016 05:14:54 pm

I looked at the review of the publication referenced by you. It says that you provide "all the Laws, Rules and Regulations that govern undiscovered lost treasures". What have you published in regards to the treatment of human remains? Have you generated a resource that covers all the local, state, federal and tribal regulations concerning graves and the artifacts that are associated with them? And can you demonstrate that your excavation site is in compliance with all applicable regulations?

I would think that proceeding without documented permissions could result in the government confiscating your discoveries as fruit of illegal activities.

Hutton Pulitzer

7/28/2016 05:38:57 pm

Dear V, I want to thank each and everyone of you posting on this forum as if we have committed a crime or intend to commit a crime. As many know, I authored the book on Treasure and Antiquities Laws both domestically and internationally (see link https://www.amazon.com/Commanders-Cacheology-Encyclopedia-Treasure-Artifact/dp/1619732157 ) Now the very reason I post this, is when bloggers or writers accuse people of a crime not committed or not adjudicated by a court of law, it is the classic definition of libel. Especially IF people take the story as real and begin to make personal, professional and business judgements based on such accusations. Simply put, each of you- responding to the "Announce Plans to Rob" headline posted by Jason, just slammed dunked the claims against Jason from 3 different parties, 1. Our company, 2. Scott Wolter as an individual and 3. Myself. One thing I am is patient, and we have legally notified Jason of our claims, but fortunate for us each of you as readers and your assertions on the misinformation have now set Jason fully in the legal cross hairs. We have no problem with you writing about us, our work or challenging us, but there are rules and liabilities when such irresponsible writing occurs. So Jason, best read your email.

Kathleen

7/28/2016 05:52:15 pm

You refer to your publication over and over but we are not talking coins and swords here. We are talking about human remains and associated grave goods and artifacts. Please explain how you will demonstrate, tangibly, your compliance with all associated regulations prior to your excavation.

V

7/29/2016 12:59:06 am

Putzer, you certainly did NOT write "the" book on any kind of law. Treasure-hunting is contemptible and you are certainly not qualified to even say the WORD "archeology." Your pathetic copy-paste drivel about so-called libel lawsuit claims--which COMPLETELY misunderstand libel law--put your reliability somewhere in the range of "I require at least two credible, qualified witnesses to believe your claim that the sun rises in the east."

You are a contemptible piece of excrement, sir. And it ain't libel if it's TRUE.

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:29:23 pm

V, are you under the impression we are digging up a grave? Are you under the impression this is native in nature? Are you under the impression we are robbing items from said places? Please, tell me where did you get this idea?

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:38:25 pm

V likely got the idea from your own podcast.

Americanegro

9/2/2016 01:14:00 am

"J. Hutton Pulitzer commands ExpeditionHistory.org and TreasureForce. COMMANDER plans and manages missions all around the globe with TreasureForce, a team of professional explorers who solve ancient clues and mysteries that lead to fantastic finds of lost or forgotten history; discoveries that help decipher our collective past and either prove or disprove the legends passed down from generation to generation."

Hutton, that sounds like some Johnny Quest / Fireball XL-5 stuff. Hard to call it "the actual course book" when it's clearly a self-published publish on demand situation. The more I read from you the more you come across as a pompous fraud.

Raparee

9/2/2016 07:51:38 am

"... TreasureForce, a team of professional explorers who solve ancient clues and mysteries that lead to fantastic finds of lost or forgotten history; discoveries that help decipher our collective past and either prove or disprove the legends passed down from generation to generation."

I would like to see one example of such a discovery made by TreasureFarce.

My friend Mark Snow just made a new edition of his incredibly informative ebook about the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympic Games available for free download via my PastPresented web portal:
http://www.pastpresented.info/marksnow.htm

Reply

David

7/28/2016 09:55:17 pm

Can you respond to the questions asked instead of trying to get the 3rd copy of your book sold? Does anything (already outdated) in your book cover graves, historical sites, proper methods for excavation and archaeology, sacred and/or ritual burial grounds? Does it cover municipal, county, state and federal laws?

Since I don't make money from this website, it really doesn't matter how many people read a particular post. That said, it might interest you to know that my most-read posts any given week are my reviews of Ancient Aliens, which attract 3 to 5 times the traffic of a post mentioning you. Clearly, if I wanted only traffic, I'd do much more alien nonsense.

But since you said you are conducting your excavation legally, does that mean that you already know that these are not human bones (and thus not subject to laws governing human remains)? Or did you purposely choose a location where protections for remains are especially lax? You did not indicate that you intended to have professional archaeological supervision, nor did you indicate how the landowners intended to repatriate or otherwise dispose of such artifacts as you will find. Absent that, what would you like me to call digging up presumed graves to display on TV? The issue is that in discussing the grave you never once seemed to recognize that the bones (if actually human) belonged to a real person worthy of respect and aren't just fun stuff to play with.

This is not something I "bash" only you about. Please see my comments expressing my disgust with Josh Gates and Brien Foerster for doing the same thing on an episode of Expedition Unknown, where they fondled a Peruvian skull for entertainment. Similarly, those who exploit elongated skulls as objects for a freak show are guilty of the same lack of respect.

I find it shocking that you went on a rant a while back about the respect you expected the world to show to Confederate monuments but don't want to extend the same to the remains of actual human beings.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:27:42 pm

Are you under the impression we are digging into a grave as you have suggested? Where did that come from? Are you suggesting we are removing artifacts? Where did that come from? Are you suggesting this is native or protected ground? Where did that come from? Where did you get the idea this is a native site or land?

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:39:40 pm

The idea almost certainly came from your own podcast.

Denise

7/28/2016 04:18:14 pm

Wow its so good to have someone tell me my place in the world. "Wanna be"....interesting I can't wait to tell my friends, family and co-workers at the Park Service my new title!

My Mom will have a fit finding this out after all my college time, and field work (30 some years) for the service learning all about fun topics like ARPA, NAGPRA, Section 106 Compliance, and Museum Curation at six different parks.

All those years running Archaeological Educational courses for school children...wasted...Gee our State Archaeologist must of been bonkers helping us with the funding "because we were teaching, not future archaeologists, but future constituents". That National award for one of the best run Archaeological Education Programs must be some sort of dream...but wait there's a plaque hanging in my office.

Yep talking in person to thousands of people over the years helping them to connect to their heritage, while preserving and protecting the sites, objects, and stories of national importance....on a government salary, while doing other things like search and rescue, and collaborating with other agencies to promote national security at our parks after 9-11.....yes sir it looks like I am a "Wanna be".

I guess Trump has some competition in the "branding department". Sigh.....

I don't know you, and until now have never felt the urge to lower myself in any sort of engagement with you....and this will be the last time I do so. But REALLY????? You honestly talk of being Professional? (this is a comment on your conduct and words, I don't care about what you do for a "profession"). WOW just WOW....

Denise Spear, Park Ranger
BA: Major in History, Minor in Anthropology
Master's in Historic Preservation
National Park Employee for 25+ years (ooh does this make me part of the "conspiracy" now....cool I've I always to be part of one of those.)

The above is just so you know that I am not hiding anything, or pretending to be someone else...even though I now must put on the flame retardant suit (good thing I am married to a Blacksmith!) preparing for the FLAME.......

Reply

Annie

7/29/2016 10:23:37 am

Nice :O)

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:26:13 pm

Denise, are you under the impression we are digging into a grave? Digging into a protected site? Opening a Native Grave? Robing artifacts? All being illegal, where did you get such an idea?

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:40:10 pm

Denise likely got the idea from your own podcast.

Raparee

7/28/2016 04:52:00 pm

How's the white paper coming, Pulitzer?

Reply

Denise

7/29/2016 06:41:59 pm

Hutton, I never mentioned graves or anything regarding your intentions towards them. My post was simply regarding your remark blanketing everyone on this blog as "wannabes". I was simply pointing out that you don't know us. Based on your response you obviously don't get it. Nor even read my words, damn I hate wasting good sarcasm. Bye bye.

Ken

7/28/2016 08:12:34 pm

Isn't that the kettle calling the pot black lmfao !!!!

Reply

David

7/28/2016 09:47:57 pm

If ti wasn't for Jason and his blog posting about all the bullshit you do then nobody would read YOUR postings or listen to your podcasts. I always get the truth here first, then based on how ridiculously funny your stuff is I may or may not go and read / listen to it.Been hearing a lot of fluff and BS from your for a while but never seems to be any actual evidence.

Maybe you should stick to playing with your sword in the privacy of your home. Count your "silver bars" to get to sleep at night.

Reply

GEE

7/28/2016 10:18:23 pm

It's not personal Hutton. It seems to me your response is wrong in so many ways. Do you really believe everything you say is truth? You used to be a man I respected, we used to have great conversation, your behavior is what set the disconnect, your belief about the Roman sword was proven wrong. It's hard to believe anything you say. You and Scott can't possibly think you will unearth a human body without reprocussions do you? Well good luck with that one.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:24:35 pm

Gee Gina, are you under the impression that we are unearthing a body, digging a grave or such? Where did you happen to get that idea?

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:40:57 pm

I'm sure Gee likely got the idea from your own podcast.

Rudyard Holmbast

7/28/2016 11:42:52 pm

Wow, way to not address the charge that you are about to desecrate Native burial sites. Maybe you can use your thesaurus to look up synonyms for "irrelevant".

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:23:37 pm

Rudyard Holmbast, are you under the impression it is a grave and such is on native american land? Where did you get such impression this was the case? Are you suggesting we are engaged in illegal activity and if yes, where did you get such and idea?

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:41:55 pm

I'd say that Rudyard likely got any ideas from your own podcast.

Americanegro

9/2/2016 01:20:09 am

Skull-effer Hutton, a.k.a. COMMANDER Hutton (I know, rite?) uses the same tactic as the Dowser guy and Rev Phil Ploetsch of repeating the same B.S. over and over, which leads me to believe they're all one mentally unstable guy.

Colavito.the.Liar

8/10/2016 08:45:47 am

It looks like you have been swarmed by a mob of morons.
They don't like when people use actual information to combat their rampaging stupidity.
I like to give them the link to this:

http://chronologiesmasterlist.blogspot.ca/

They are usually forced to shut up and read for a bit.

EDUCATE YOURSELVES, Ya whiny snivellers!!!

Reply

DaveR

8/10/2016 02:11:44 pm

That link is a complete waste of time.

Thomas Schroeder

8/10/2016 04:49:24 pm

Yes, DaveR, worthless link. We say the sky is blue so we are given a link that says it is green. Very illuminating.

Colavito.the.Liar, your thought paradigm is so circular it must make your head spin:

1) You begin by using your gut feeling to discount formal, vetted, and accepted science because somebody told you "the man" wants to keep the real truth from you. The validity of this initial step was self evident to you and did not require anything more than conjecture.
2) You are now free to openly seek things at odds with formal science, and to be fully suspicious of scientific points of view. You embrace what you see. You feel liberated and special because now you are part of the true inner circle of knowledge. Not many thinkers get here. Go ahead and take a moment to pat yourself on the back for finding your way, Neo!
3) You feel validation that your initial consideration in #1 was correct. You have had fun so you continue searching for more secret truths. Each time you become more convinced that you are on the right path. (It's not unlike a Sudoku puzzle where elements continue to fall into place even though an initial selection was incorrect.) Eventually you become an advocate for fringe ideas. You have made friends along the way and, probably for the first time in your life, you have respect from your peer group. Criticism from others only serves to strengthen your resolve because you now view it as proof that others are liars and want to stop your message of truth. It is now impossible for you to fathom you're wrong and to contemplate forfeiting your empowerment and respect to complete embarrassment. You have become a lost cause.

I do appreciate you stepping into the light of the real world long enough for us to know that the work we do is so vital.

Thomas

7/28/2016 03:34:55 pm

Thank you, Jason. Very interested to see how this develops. Of course, if the bones are not those of giant people, which we all expect, they are clearly not native American, so no robbing or desecration of burials is taking place. The question then becomes, do Wolter and Pulitzer believe the bones might actually be human giants, and so willing to act contrary to laws and ethics, or do they just look forward to the sensationalism?

Typo in the last sentence of the 12th Paragraph: "The two men believe that only be broadcasting..."

Reply

Thomas

7/28/2016 03:49:17 pm

I should have more clearly stated: "If the bones are exceptionally large (as implied in the paragraph about examining the photos) but do not turn out to be those of giant people, which we all expect, they are clearly not ........."

Reply

Rose McDonald

7/28/2016 04:54:30 pm

"...the existence of large numbers of newspaper reports of giants means that at least some of the reports must be true"
Scott Wolter
Let's change just two words to demonstrate the lunacy of this claim by Wolter
"...the existence of large numbers of newspaper reports of Elvis sightings means that at least some of the reports must be true"
'Nuff said?

Reply

Bonnie Goodine

7/28/2016 05:01:00 pm

https://www.amazon.com/Commanders-Cacheology-Encyclopedia-Treasure-Artifact/dp/1619732157/
Hutton Pulitzer wrote the book on it.Jason do you not research?

Reply

Peter Geuzen

7/28/2016 05:06:04 pm

That should be "Hutton Pulitzer copied and pasted from the internet, the book on it"

Reply

Day Late and Dollar Short

7/28/2016 06:12:43 pm

I'm sure the court of law that JHP and SW are so enamored with will totally agree that "treasure" and "artifacts" are the same thing as human remains...

Either they know the remains are not human, and that's why they're being so brazen, or the site is in an area with less stringent laws regarding repatriation and reporting found human remains. Either way, it is an egregious plan that essentially spits in the face of American Indians and tells them The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is stupid.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:21:48 pm

Day Late and Dollar Short, are you under the impression we are working on native american land and digging on native american land or doing so without permits and such? Where did you get such an idea?

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:42:59 pm

I'm pretty sure that Day Late got any ideas from your podcast, Hutton.

Since you don't see any problem with this type of "Excavation" Hutton, I am sure you and Wolters can take it up with the FBI then....

CERBERUS ACTION will be saying hello......

You know exactly who they are.....

Native American graves don't get touched .......ever.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/28/2016 05:36:20 pm

To All: I want to thank each and everyone of you posting on this forum as if we have committed a crime or intend to commit a crime. As many know, I authored the book on Treasure and Antiquities Laws both domestically and internationally (see link https://www.amazon.com/Commanders-Cacheology-Encyclopedia-Treasure-Artifact/dp/1619732157 ) Now the very reason I post this, is when bloggers or writers accuse people of a crime not committed or not adjudicated by a court of law, it is the classic definition of libel. Especially IF people take the story as real and begin to make personal, professional and business judgements based on such accusations. Simply put, each of you- responding to the "Announce Plans to Rob" headline posted by Jason, just slammed dunked the claims against Jason from 3 different parties, 1. Our company, 2. Scott Wolter as an individual and 3. Myself. One thing I am is patient, and we have legally notified Jason of our claims, but fortunate for us each of you as readers and your assertions on the misinformation have now set Jason fully in the legal cross hairs. We have no problem with you writing about us, our work or challenging us, but there are rules and liabilities when such irresponsible writing occurs. So Jason, best read your email.

Reply

Eldorado

7/28/2016 05:40:04 pm

......Ever

Raparee

7/28/2016 05:50:58 pm

Considering some of the tripe you have come up with in the past, I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in your book. Even if it is THE book on treasure and antiquities laws.

smh

Clete

7/28/2016 05:54:18 pm

Glad you clarified your position by repeating the same post, word or word, three times.

Kathleen

7/28/2016 05:59:30 pm

Cut and paste by J. Hutton Pulitzer?!? Shocking!!!

Jim

7/28/2016 07:47:27 pm

Is a slam dunk the same as a smoking gun ?

David

7/28/2016 10:04:03 pm

"We have no problem with you writing about us, our work or challenging us, but there are rules and liabilities when such irresponsible writing occurs."

You are a liar, a cheat, a bastard, a fraudster and likely a soon to be inmate at either a jail, prison or insane asylum.

PICK ME PICK ME. I accept your challenge.

John (the other one)

7/28/2016 11:06:31 pm

I think he shoots himself in the foot with the gun and then while it is still smoking he slam dunks it (not a normal height hoop), the commadus commando is weighed down by all his treasure forcing equipment.

Rudyard Holmbast

7/29/2016 12:02:49 am

Your repeated claims that you have authored THE definitive text on recovered antiquities are absolutely ridiculous. All I see is a link to a little read book that is simply a restatement of various laws currently on the books. Your implication that it is somehow the last word on the subject and widely accepted as such by experts across the globe is nothing short of pathetic grandstanding by a flim-flam man. Yes, that's right, you are little more than a con artist in a pith helmet(and from what I have read about you, you appear to be a racist as well). Feel free to uncover my identity and then sue me for libel because I have called you a grave-robbing purveyor of pseudo-historical bullsh$% on a public forum. You may want to fire up a slander lawsuit as well, as I plan on repeating, to everyone I know, everything that I have written on this site.

I will close by noting that Mr. Colavito cannot be held liable for what outside commenters have written on this site, despite your ludicrous claims to the contrary. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, smart guy.

I look forward to your lawsuit.

Sticker

7/29/2016 09:18:37 am

Why do you keep repeating this same post over and over again? Do you think we'll cower if you say it enough times?

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:20:39 pm

Eldorado, are you under the impression we are robbing native american graves? Where did you get such an idea?

Jason, since JHP is getting more reads here than anywhere else right now, there must be a way to cash in, like starting to charge him for 'reads' by the hundreds or thousands.

Reply

Kal

7/28/2016 07:08:40 pm

First of all, libel this is not. This is someone's opinion. It is not considered hateful or defamatory. It is merely a blog. And it is grave robbing if you want to desiccate a grave site. It would only be considered actionable if he said you did already commit such an act. He did not.

And next time some of you try to hack into a Facebook password, and post random stuff about libel and your opinions on giants, don't do it from a college computer library I can trace so easily. It might be considered cyber bullying.

And another of you above has me confused for another blogger. I didn't say anything about this post until now.

Reply

Kal

7/28/2016 07:19:43 pm

The random stuff was on my wall on google, but they were trying to get my password for Facebook, and tried to lock me out, and they weren't very clever. i know where they came from.

And someone does not understand how internet blog readers go. I do not need to explain. Simply put, it appears Jason is not being paid for this blog, so therefore there is no conspiracy. He is also not a news agency, and therefore, not a public figure. As a private citizen, he is entitled his his opinion on public figures, such was SW and HP. This is a blog, not a news source.

I am not a news source either, but an interested party that looks at fringe stories, nor have I done a peer review. No, I have not been in archeology or hard science. I never claimed to be an expert on that.

Sending a rant link to a google mail page several pages long about why you think giants are real is ridiculous as I am not a giant expert and would not know what to do about that. I find the subject rather tedious.

Maybe there is a lawyer posting, but so what? It's not going to matter. Nobody will care tomorrow about it.

Nobody's show is ruined.

Reply

Kal

7/28/2016 07:30:22 pm

Here is a link. Read this and make your own opinion about one of the complaining figures. Cheers!

Kal, makes my head spin. I will have to sleep with one foot on the floor...

Reply

Sticker

7/29/2016 09:25:06 am

I've read this a couple of times and it's absolutely incredible. Early in my career I used to type up transcripts for a couple of TV shows, and in all my life I have never seen another transcript as theatrical as this.

Reply

Ken

7/28/2016 08:10:08 pm

IF they really do this, and IF whatever they dig up is a real set of bones, and IF they have not pre-placed something purporting to be bones, and IF the find is evaluated by a real forensic scientist, I am willing to bet that what they claim to be 7'6" tall being is really less than 5'6" tall and less than 100 years old.

Remember the alien autopsy film?

Reply

RW Taylor

7/28/2016 10:40:33 pm

Writing the actual laws is different than the Copy+Paste jobs which your books are. Please, be a bit more correct when your posting the "facts". The reviews are there from people who have purchased them.

Also, "cacheology" is not a degree, no matter how much you wish. It's about as real as your "mythochronologist" and "oopgly".

Randal, are you under the impression that we are working on native or ancestral grounds in some manner? Where did you get this idea? You know such is illegal? Where did you get such an idea we where engaged in illegal activities?

Reply

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:50:31 pm

You know, Randal never said anything about you being engaged in illegal activity Hutton, but, now that you mention it, if he had, he probably would have gotten the idea form your own podcast.

Eldorado

7/29/2016 07:05:59 pm

I'll help The Big Mike out for all you auto spammers on the Commanders "Team"......

As mentioned, it was from the podcast done by you I got the idea, not from this blog. I do not see anywhere that Jason is giving that idea.

RW Taylor

7/28/2016 11:18:06 pm

Most of those laws were created hand in hand with the Smithsonian and a few other institutions of higher learning before any of us were born...most prior to WW2 (Antiquities Act of 1906 pretty well started it all). To even think of creating a new law takes years of experience in legalese, with time spent in front of committees who research the impact of changes or enactments.

I know this because I've contacted several of the national and state societies in the USA over the past few years to ask. Each one I contacted regarding his claims had no clue who he was.

To lay false claims that one has created these laws AND wrote the definitive book on them? I'm sure that there is a lawsuit for that!

I'm positive that the Native American Graves Repatriation Act will stop them dead in their steps though.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:17:12 pm

Hello Randal, how goes Nova Scotia. Have not interfaced with you since the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Sargent had to interview you and your brother and get you to stop your "issues". From your post above you seem to assert "I have created" such laws? Can you please post such claim or are you embellishing a bit. But yes, you can get my domestic and international law book via Amazon regarding treasure and antiquities laws. Enjoy.

Reply

RW Taylor

7/29/2016 09:07:05 pm

Ahh yes, SpammerGate, when everyone breathing was reported and your river of tears lead you to claim I made sexual comments towards you on Periscope, then proceeded to spam even myself to get suspended. Good that you brought that up, as it reminded me of something.

Nova Scotia is great. Hoping you don't get a chance to come back, as I still wonder what a person with your money and resources would do to someone who has quarreled with you, since you have no compunction in bringing in people with violent charges (shooting at someone during a road rage incident) that were admitted by them in court. The RCMP are aware of my fear, as the kindly Corporal notated.

You've laid claim several times to have "written the laws" on it, periodically you have made the statement. I'd look for them but I bet your writing your lawyer again or trying to get ahold of more RCMP officers to say I'm stalking you.

bkd69

7/29/2016 03:04:08 am

Is it just me, or does that that stupid XpLrR name read more as "Expeller" than "Explorer"? Because that lower case r gets lost in the type, and Expeller seems to be an accurate description of their product.

Reply

tm

7/29/2016 03:55:19 am

So...Wolter has a small...obelisk, and Pulitzer has a small...sword, and sometimes a cigar...isn't just a cigar. ;)

Reply

Only Me

7/29/2016 06:20:27 am

Since my question seems to have been lost in the sea of comments, I will ask again.

Hutton, are you aware Scott Wolter, on his own blog, accused both the late Richard Nielsen and Professor Henrick Williams of academic fraud? Since that, too, falls under libel, have you shared the benefit of your legal expertise with your business partner?

Before I'm accused of misrepresentation, here are the exact quotes, taken from Scott's comments:

Scott Wolter February 10, 2016 at 3:34 PM

In any case, what these two clowns have tried to pull off is nothing short of academic fraud.

Scott Wolter February 12, 2016 at 11:36 AM

It’s simple and straight-forward, Williams and Nielsen have perpetrated academic fraud and felt embolden to do so in large part due to the lack of any kind of standard of accountability in soft-science academia.

So explain to us, Hutton, why it's okay for your business partner to accuse two men of perpetrating academic fraud, but, you want to scream libel because of Jason's original headline and the comments left in the comments section on this blog.

Reply

ghettohillbilly1

7/29/2016 06:27:11 am

Hmmm no typo's or ALL CAPS or grammatical errors, very strange... don't think your actually talking to Hutton, seems like someone else is going to bat for him, his g/f perhaps

Reply

Andy White

7/29/2016 08:38:26 am

Giants, fairies, and unicorns don't exist, but laws protecting the disturbance of human remains do (regardless of your ethics). Why not go on a quest to uncover the great unicorn conspiracy? There is just as much physical evidence to go on and no laws protecting unicorn graves. I'm sure it's all covered in the various cacheology mythochronology course books available in the Yale library.

I'm not sure if you just didn't see my questions before, so I'll ask them again:

You said "Commodus's Secret" has shipped -- where can I get a copy?

When will your white paper about the "Roman sword" be coming out?

Reply

E.P. Grondine

7/29/2016 09:53:00 am

Hi Andy -

It looks to me like neither Pullitzer nor Wolters is aware of NAGPRA, which is Federal law.

But it is not my job to inform them of it, and I sort of wish you had not. How about we just sit back and watch the fun?

It is also not my job to tell these clowns about the skeletal remains of large stature,nor who is working with them.

The way I view Wolters and Pullitzer is that when David Childress moved on to Ancient Aliens, he essentially left his earlier "stuff" for Wolters to exploit. But of course, professionals have been dealing with that "stuff" for years, and Wolters has walked into their earlier research.

Like P.T. Barnum, who would move on to new "sensations", Childress has moved on, leaving the grief for others. But it is likely he still gets a hefty percentage.

The other part of this seems to be a less than careful use of NEARA materials.

NAGPRA only applies to federal lands. Private lands are governed by a patchwork of state and local laws, some of which are stricter than others. Generally, since laypeople can't really determine how old a bone is, unless the site is a documented private cemetery human remains need to be reported to local authorities so a medical examiner can determine whether they are ancient or modern, and whether the site is a crime scene. But as I said laws vary greatly from location to location.

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:11:44 pm

E. P. Grodine, are you under the impression that both Scott and I are unaware of the legal requirements and laws, specifically The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act? Where would you get such an idea? Additionally, have you read my law text book on such topics as they relate to the US and International ?

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:56:20 pm

I'm pretty sure that if E.P. has any ideas regarding you not being aware of the laws (or not caring that you'd be breaking them), those ideas likely came from your own podcast.

E.P. Grondine

7/30/2016 12:22:09 pm

Hi Jason -

It is not my job to tell these two about state laws and county coroners, either. Nor legal title to human remains.

Nor about Sioux and Ojibwe.

Why not just sit back and enjoy watching what happens to them?

You may enjoy watching Fletcher and my's video:
https://youtu.be/OpYBsj0NNfI

Denise

7/29/2016 10:24:02 am

Hey Andy,

I just wanted to say kudos on "SwordGate", my husband is a blacksmith who specializes in making authentically accurate reproductions of historic swords of many time periods . His work is in museums, movies, and he won special recognition for making the sword that was presented to the King of Spain during the Columbus Quin-centennial on behalf of the City of St. Augustine. He was quite amused over the whole thing. (and we love the Toscano catalog).

I might pop over to your blog to ask/propose something to you....

Reply

Andy White

7/29/2016 12:40:28 pm

Thanks. I'll be watching for it. Or you can send me an email: aawhite@mailbox.sc.edu.

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:13:48 pm

If you bought a copy of the pre-order then you will get your package in the mail very shortly. As you know, being a pre-order customer the Commodus' Secret part ONLY came with the pre-order. Send me your order info and will tell you exactly where you package is. You posted before when asked that you had downloaded the sword report. Was that not a truthful statement on your part before?

Reply

Andy White

7/29/2016 05:55:15 pm

I don't think I ever downloaded that 200 page report. I do know that you said specifically that that 200-page document was NOT the "white paper."
I'm asking about the "white paper" that was promised for last spring.

You previously said that the books had "started to ship." Was that statement not accurate? Have the books actually shipped or not?

I actually tried to purchase the preorder, but the websites that used to be available for ordering were no longer functional. I would like to read what you have to say in your book.

Annie

7/29/2016 10:31:35 am

Does the name " Jim Viera" stone mason brothers work ring any bells with any of you ? It seems the work they did in searching for " Search For the Lost Giants" s being borrowed by others... Just wondering if the show they had being refashioned into a resource (story line) to make money by Hutton and Scott ?

No, "America Unearthed" came first. History commissioned "Lost Giants" to try (and fail) to capitalize on the success of "Unearthed" and "Curse of Oak Island."

Reply

Denise

7/29/2016 12:12:04 pm

Hey Jason,

You are partly right about NAGPRA regulations, but it is a little broader in scope, it can apply to any any project done on state or federal lands, or even on private lands if there is state or federal money involved in the project. But obviously none of this applies to this particular case.

Andy White

7/29/2016 11:04:45 pm

On the topic of when/where NAGPRA applies, it also includes the following section, just FYI:

SEC. 4. ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING.
(a) ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING.--Chapter 53 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

"(a) Whoever knowingly sells, purchases, uses for profit, or transports for sale or profit, the human remains of a Native American without the right of possession to those remains as provided in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act shall be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than 12
months, or both, and in the case of a second or subsequent violation, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Denise

7/30/2016 02:09:00 pm

Andy is correct in his additional comments on NAGPRA , in fact this the reason why arrowheads are not allowed to be sold on eBay. Any vender can be liable if they are handling potential grave goods.

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 11:36:55 am

I think that Mr. Pulitzer's attempts to silence comments from expressing their opinions by copy-and-paste "legal" threats is incredibly hilarious. As soon as the word "desecrate" appears in a comment, Pulitzer is bound to reach for his "ctrl+c"

Here's the thing though... desecration isn't just a legal term. I can accuse Hutton Pulitzer and Scott Wolter of desecrating a grave ALL DAY LONG without ever once referring to them committing a crime. The definition of the word desecrate is "treat (a sacred place or thing) with violent disrespect; violate" IF the site they excavate is, in fact, a grave and not simply a mammoth, mastodon, or bison then they have violated the sanctity of that site. They both, most assuredly, have completely dismissed the sacred nature of such a site if the grave is of a Native American. Evidence for this is found in their very own podcast when they completely ignore that many Native American Tribes include ancestor veneration/worship in their spiritual beliefs. Mr. Pulitzer asked, as Jason put it, "why we have legislation to protect graves if the existence of giants were merely 'outright hoaxes.'" The reason we have such legislation is because many of the cultures in our great melting pot have some deep belief in protecting the remains of the dead. Essentially... PEOPLE HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT GRAVE DESECRATION!

Do you're copy and paste again Hutton. I don't give a damn. You and Wolter have demonstrated that you have no respect for Native cultures time and time again by denying them their hard earned history and trying to replace it with Euorocentric BULLSHIT. Any "archaeological" dig of a Native grave that you or Wolter are involved in is disrespectful to Native cultures and is therefore, by definition, DESECRATION.

That being said, good luck digging up those mammoth bones.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 03:23:58 pm

Mike, the facts matter and "desecration" is NOT at issue. The headline, URL use of the word ROB is the legal issue: Rob has a legal definition. take property unlawfully from (a person or place) by force or threat of force.
"he tried, with three others, to rob a bank"
synonyms: steal from

Both real facts and WORDS matter.

Reply

Only Me

7/29/2016 04:30:19 pm

Why haven't you answered my question? If real facts and words matter, why won't you acknowledge the clearly unprofessional, libelous attack made by your business partner?

Are you, Hutton Pulitzer, in favor of a double-standard?

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:09:35 pm

TheBigMike, are you under the impression that Scott and I are involved in an illegal did of a native american site? Where did you get that idea?

Reply

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:10:55 pm

Actually I never said you were involved in an illegal dig. In point of fact, I specifically said that I could accuse you of desecration WITHOUT accusing you of criminal action.
As you said, facts and words matter. You have demonstrated a racist disrespect for Native American culture on numerous occasions and therfore your involvement with an excavation of a Native American grave site would be, by virtue of your involvement, disrespectful and therefore desecration of that site.
Also, I specifically said that I believe the site of your supposed "grave site" will turn out to be nothing more than a collection of mammoth bones. It wouldn't be a grave at all, so, again, I did NOT assume, or imply, that you were involved in the criminal desecration of human remains.

GEE

7/29/2016 02:14:35 pm

I personally think he starts rambling lawsuits to get us off the subject... he is a master manipulator. Even if we find out what the law is pertaining to this particular dig and Area, doesn't mean they went through the proper channels. They're mistake will be to air it live... can't wait for that fiasco. Let's prove they didn't approach the appropriate authorities first. I think that's fair.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:08:39 pm

Gee Gina, are you under the impression that Scott and I circumvented the legal process or authorities and proper licensing and approvals? Where did you get such an idea?

Reply

GEE

7/29/2016 05:42:31 pm

Hutton, no I wasn't under that impression, until you felt the need to defend what you were doing by throwing digging laws my way. That being said I would never purchase anything from you, honey.

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:58:36 pm

You asked Gee twice already, and on this one, there's an answer. I'll add that if any ideas were given, they likely came from your own podcast.

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:34:35 pm

GEE, Gina, the posting of laws, came from the common themed statement such as yours "Quote" Let's prove they didn't approach the appropriate authorities first....... You see each and everyone of were fooled and boondoggled by Jasons choice of words. Each of you think something is illegal and that it is native. That shows just how little you actually do research and care about the facts. It is the same way you personally stalk my sites and social media and scotts sites and try to get access. You have no life and you got your feewings hurt when I banned you for showing your ass. But hey, I am personally happy to of have now given you a purpose in life and something to live for and look for everyday of your life. Happy to be of service, but if you put as much effort into research and history as you do stalking me, you might actually become known for something positive. Sadly, all you are known for and why anyone even knows your name is for stalking and bad mouthing me. So in a way, I gave you purpose and now a double handful of people think you are important and I am happy I could quadruple your base of influence. All the best and keep trying.

Reply

GEE

7/29/2016 08:02:17 pm

Hutton, I cant even reply with common sense., as you seem to be the man of the hour. Did your mama ever tell you not to be so rude, and play nice in the sand box with others? You my friend, are no gentlemen.

RW Taylor

7/29/2016 02:20:45 pm

Only lawsuit he will ever see is when someone catches him selling a book red handed with plagiarized chunks of it lifted from their own works and decide to take action.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 02:55:03 pm

To Jason, you know and we have discussed this over and over, that a blog and calling it opinion does not save you from legal action. Now, we have been through this 3 times now and each time we have notified you. Also, not really sure you should be taking your legal advice from Randall Tayler or Gina Torresso. But we have tried to play nice. No you, just as any publisher knows words matter and you posted that we had committed a crime and were in the act of a crime. We notified you and we have done this drill 3 times from our attorneys office. This is really up to you not us. You surely know you just need to stop the inflammatory headlines with libel. You are well within your rights to say you hate us, distrust us and all other kinds of things, but you cannot write we have committed crimes are engaged in illegal activity. Even you can wordsmith around those words you use and still find a way to attack us, our person, or work and so on. As you said there is much to write about, but it just must be done legally. Now seeing your posts on FB looking for Pro-Bono legal help wont help either. You see, you attacked Scot and I personally and thus claims in our two states and then the company attack and that makes a 3rd state. Thus you would need 3 attorneys, not one since most are not licensed to practice in multiple states. This has been going on for well too long, but you are the one writing and libeling. So how about this? Just stop, control yourself, but you cannot imply criminal acts, intentions and such. Talk about my massive receding hairline, my butt ugliness or my weight---- all fair game. But when you write to professionally discredit with the use of implying crimes and such you become open for legal issues. The future is up to you, not me, not Scott. But even your plea on FB, puts you in a spot. So I will educate you once again. You stated in a public forum just an hour ago stating extortion, and such. That again is a libel issue. No sir, you were issued a cease and desist and offered a path to peace and harmony. But darn here you go once again and post written words for public consumption naming Scott and I with being in the commission of a crime. You really need to understand the law, you really need an attorney since you cannot seem to control yourself. But peace is far better than the reader milage you get off of attacking us. Facts matter, words matter and I do not care at all you have a crush on Scott and must glom on his work, but you have to do it within the confines of the law or their are consequences. None of the Nova Scotians who hate squat on your blog can give you legal advice, you need real legal advice and you will find your very own counsel will tell you knock it off. Think of it this way. My attorney is $800 an hour. Each time I cc him your stuff, it costs me $400 , thus think how many times we have done this dance. We are not afraid to defend our rights, profession and such. But you keep on going too, too far.

Reply

Day Late and Dollar Short

7/29/2016 03:35:45 pm

Whatever, you're a terrible human being. I'm sharing your site and intentions with everyone I know who works at a THIPO. Maybe, if its in Wolter's back yard we can even organize a protest, you know, for the planned desecration of what is "likely" (since Scott himself admits most of the north American giants are American Indians) native American remains.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:07:19 pm

Day Late and Dollar Short, are you under the impression a grave is being or has been robbed and that it is both native and not being conducted legally? If so, where did you get that idea?

Big Tony

7/29/2016 05:22:10 pm

Hutton, you yourself stated that you are planning to seek out human remains with the goal of not alerting any authorities or experts. These are not things to be respected in your mind, they are playthings to inflate your ego.

You are scum at best, a grave-robber at worst (depending on the local laws of whatever location you plan on desecrating, which you haven't released). Now go ahead and mention that you copy-pasted some book while giving no details about the actual situation at hand.

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 07:01:11 pm

Tony answered that one, right. Any ideas came from Hutton's own podcast.

Raparee

7/29/2016 05:26:12 pm

You are absolute garbage, Pulitzer. First with your phony Roman sword con, and now with your plan to desecrate a grave. With the audacity to try to make yourself the victim.

Absolute human garbage.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:28:31 pm

Raparee, where did you get the idea we plan to rob a grave? Or that it is a grave? Or that it is in fact the ground? Or that it is native? Or that we are not doing it legally? Where did you get such an idea?

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 07:00:36 pm

See, on this one Raparee didn't even say "rob." The word desecrate was used. I've already explained that one twice... and besides, any ideas about you robbing a grave likely would have come from your won podcast.

Finally, a breath of fresh air in here. This all seemed to balloon out of hand since I last checked in, but seemingly unlike others here... I actually go out on Friday nights. But anyhow, such self-deprecation almost shows a glimpse of humanity on your part "Hutton". Perhaps deep down, a good sport. Either way, I have to say, well played sir. Well played.

Reply

RW Taylor

7/30/2016 01:00:55 am

J-dawg can look me up for some phat legal advice any time he chooses, although it is Canadian. Thanks for the shout out!

I charge $200/hr

Reply

GEE

7/30/2016 05:05:37 pm

Hutton,
Mostly from past experiences, if there is a real complaint taken up with an Attorney, the Attorney will tell you, point blank, NO contact with the accused. This is a fact, and as you say FACTS matter. I've never seen anyone contact an attorney with a complaint and still have a say so on the matter, it doesn't work that way. Attorney takes over, that's what you hire them for. If in deed you have a case. Your threat is worthless dude.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 02:58:10 pm

BTW Jason, just to help educate you. Lawyers are just a normal cost of doing business, but over time you learn things. I will share a few with you. For example: You changed the headline which was libel BUT you DID NOT change the last sentence re: the live robbing of a Native American grave on video to “prove” that giants existed...... thus it still exists live and damaging each day. NEXT, look at your URL path, it is still there too! You need to clean this up. The definition of the words matter: rob
[rob]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object), robbed, robbing.
1.

Reply

Ph

7/29/2016 03:06:54 pm

You have robbed me of my trust in humanity.

Reply

Big Tony

7/29/2016 05:09:25 pm

Hutton, you hack fraud con man and future thief, you literally have copy-pasted the same book hundreds of times, you claim to be some pioneer of technology, yet you can't even properly copy and paste the definition of rob.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:27:14 pm

Question Big Tony, where did you get the idea I was a fraud? Thief? or have copy pasted a book several hundred time? If you are referring to my books, you might want to do some simple math and simple entry level reading. Such as "Lost Treasures You Can Find... (and then here is the hard part) each state named. Thus, 50 states, thus 50 books for that series. Again, facts matter. LOL

RW Taylor

7/30/2016 01:11:21 am

The book reviews speak for themselves on Amazon. Each "separate" book is identical except for a small bit relevant to the state at hand. That is Copy+Paste at work.

1.0 out of 5 stars Not worht the money
By Patrick M Salmonon March 2, 2014
Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase
All hte commnader books are the same, 2 or 3 treasures ( all well known) with the rest about his group.

Bob Jase

7/29/2016 03:07:16 pm

Hey JHP, how's the grave-robbing going?

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:06:15 pm

Bob Jase, are you under the impression I am or I am engaged in grave robbing? Where did you get that idea?

Reply

Big Tony

7/29/2016 05:12:16 pm

Hutton, while you're here, when is the Oak Island Sword White Paper going to be released? Last I heard it was supposed to be released Spring 2016.

Darren

7/29/2016 05:17:40 pm

From your podcast Hutton, where you and Wolter implied that you would be doing so.

Jim

7/29/2016 06:15:55 pm

Pulitzer, "where did you get that idea" Are you hoping to get someone to name Jason to help with your bogus libel claim? lol We all get that idea from your soundcloud episode !
Also, you should be aware that a court of law is nothing like a couple of wingnuts browbeating a defensless rock into admitting it something that it is not !!

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 06:25:18 pm

I see way you're doing here, Hutton. This is a pissed poor attempt to get people to say that "***** gave them an idea" but the TRUTH is that the idea came FROM YOUR OWN SOUNDCLOUD PODCAST. You made statements and claims that outright state that you will not involve the authorities or academics in a potential archaeological dig... THAT is grave robbing and therefore any statement made about it is NOT libel.

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 07:03:19 pm

If Bob got any ideas, Hutton, it was probably from your own podcast.

Mike Morgan

7/29/2016 08:02:16 pm

Jim,

LMAO. Love that line, "browbeating a defensless rock into admitting it is something that it is not !!"

Please don't pull a "Wolter" and copyright/trademark it. Some of us may want to use it in the future. :>)

Kathleen

7/29/2016 05:20:25 pm

Your proposals have the possibility of being unethical or even illegal. I got the idea from watching your presentation on SoundCloud. Thanks for the URL.

"Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort, while like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings."

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:40:41 pm

Kathleen, where did you get the idea that anything we were doing is "possibly illegal"? The case law for malicious lawsuit is based upon repeatable practice. In this case, the repeatable practices are not of our side, but of Jasons repeated libel writings. Now, I do have the benefit of counsel on this matter and have dealt with Jason on this and he can confirm our attorney has been involved. Each time (3 not counting his facebook posting today) are actionable offenses and each time we have chosen to let Jason slide and try to clean up his act. But he does not, this is his choice. However, the best thing we have is three legal notifications to Jason, each separate topics, but same offense. Seem jason will have a serious time saying this is malicious when he is the offender. But we are willing to both take our chances and prove a point.

Reply

Big Tony

7/29/2016 05:49:16 pm

I get it Hutton. XpLrR (or however you spell it) is an absolute failure. Nobody cares at all about your new business venture. The only online presence you have is your terrible website that is incomplete and Jason's dismantling of you and Wolter's crap.

Whenever anyone googles you, or Wolter, or America Unearthed, or ###G0XP1rR, Jason is what comes up. I guess your only option at this point is to abuse the legal system to get your way.

Kathleen

7/29/2016 05:52:20 pm

Libel

As Inigo Montoya said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:24:31 pm

Question Kathleen... would you explain to me the following? YOUR QUOTE: "I got the idea from watching your presentation on SoundCloud. " QUESTION: How to you manage to see such in an audio file?

Reply

Kathleen

7/29/2016 06:31:09 pm

I hah been watching and listening to a few of your presentations and had both on my mind. Thanks for catching my typo

Big Tony

7/29/2016 06:34:25 pm

Hutton, are you of all people seriously going to be so pedantic as to get on someone for a little mistake like this? I listened to your sound cloud post. You can't speak for 3 consecutive sentences without some kind of mispronunciation or grammatical mistake such as the one you just bothered to correct.

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:39:11 pm

kathleen, which of my recent WATCHABLE media did you confuse with the audio program on giants?

Kathleen

7/29/2016 06:49:14 pm

I am interested in a variety of your recent output. You should be happy to have me add to your count of your audio and visual productions. As you can see, I sometimes have typos, phones have such little keyboards

GEE

7/29/2016 08:20:03 pm

Kathleen, he doesn't care who really "listens" to his sound clouds, because he may or may not be "buying" listeners. I saw his listener count go up 30 thousand in a span of 6 hours. I heard its about $7.00 per 10,000 .. No worries, when he does not know how to respond to people who are smarter than him, he puts them down in any way he knows how. He just did that to me above., .. my life is not consumed with Hutton and his every move, but I do have a moment during my day where I need entertainment., I turn to Hutton and his 4 facebook pages, his 3 twitter accounts and his multiple podcasts. If he had truly read my post earlier I was trying to say that we should prove that he and SW have not gone through the proper channels, first before judgement., but he read what he wanted to. Must be those speed reading skills he has

John (the other one)

7/29/2016 05:31:11 pm

Hutton,

What courses at what law schools have used your textbook? Are your books properly sourced, if I buy them and then check the sources of all the material content (images and text) what would I find?

Also since you like definitions from the Internet your "excavation" qualifies as grave robbing, you aren't a trained archaeologist. It's going to be like that underwater disaster SW was on with that other treasure hunter. Take things before they can be properly examined by trained professions for profit equals grave robbing.

Grave robber:
noun
1.
a person who steals valuables from graves and tombs:
Graverobbers had emptied the Mayan tomb before archaeologists could examine its contents.
2.
a person who steals corpses after burial, especially for medical dissection.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 05:36:36 pm

John (the other one) you can see my book on amazon and see the sections, references and citations. Next, are you under the impression that Scott and I are digging into a grave? Digging into a native site or grave? Removing artifacts form such? Are you suggesting there is not one or more archaeologist involved? Where did you get such ideas?

Reply

Big Tony

7/29/2016 05:42:11 pm

From your sound cloud post, where you claim your goal to not allow authorities or academics to get involved and hide the truth.

Only Me

7/29/2016 05:45:21 pm

Attempt #3

Why haven't you answered my question? If real facts and words matter, why won't you acknowledge the clearly unprofessional, libelous attack made by your business partner?

Are you, Hutton Pulitzer, in favor of a double-standard?

GEE

7/29/2016 05:52:34 pm

Hutton, it's a grave if it's human remains. Period. You started on your sound cloud, possible giants.. Giants aren't human???? Sorry to 1st Jason is not the problem here, you are your own worst enemy. Your lawsuit will go nowhere.. just like your future.. you are not well liked, and very far from being respected .. I almost felt sorry for you, if you need to cry on my shoulder please reach out to me.

John (the other one)

7/29/2016 06:20:55 pm

Let me try again:

Grave robber
noun
1.
a person who steals valuables from graves and tombs:
Graverobbers had emptied the Mayan tomb before archaeologists could examine its contents.
2.
a person who steals corpses after burial, especially for medical dissection.

If you take something valuable from a grave you are a grave robber. If it is an archaeological excavation you are fine. You imply that you are digging in a grave and that no archaeologists will be there therefore grave robbing. All of this information came from you.

It's sad really, when amateurs go out and dig they don't realize the destruction they cause and the information that can be lost. That was one of the issues UNESCO had with SW last thing.

If there is an archaeologist who is it?

Clete

7/29/2016 06:14:50 pm

J. Hutton Pultizer, you are an idiot, you are an idiot, you are an idiot, you are an idiot. There I have said it more than three times. That must make it true according to your repeated posts.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:44:28 pm

Clete, the only thing which happened in this article is Jason lied, over and over and said we were robing a site and acting illegally and each of your sphincter snugglers repeated it as if it was true and gospel. Goes to show, some people love to hate just for the sake of hate and some love repeating it more that. Thus, yes I fully agree Jason is in a huge pickle and each of you less than keep digging it deeper and deeper and deeper for him. I love it.

Reply

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 07:15:30 pm

Actually, The thing that happened is that you stated that you were going to proceed with a dig that MAY BE HUMAN REMAINS without authorities or academics present on your own podcast. Then Jason used a word that you do not like and you threatened to sue. No one on this discussion actually stated that you HAD done anything illegal, just that it COULD be illegal. Again, as stated numerous times, Jason is not responsible for the comments made by visitors to his blog. He has changed his blog post as requested to leave out any mention of the "r" word.
Again, any ideas about you and Wolter perpetrating a grave robbery came from your own words.

IM YOUR FAVORITE HATTER, HUTTON

7/29/2016 08:23:43 pm

JOVAN, ELDORADO INFORMED THE FBI OF YOUR FUTURE "DIG".. I WOULD MAKE SURE YOUR DUCKS ARE IN ORDER KID.

PROVE US WRONG, PLEASE, FOR ONCE?

Andy White

7/29/2016 06:18:22 pm

I keep forgetting to check the email notification button, so this comment is just so I can stop scrolling through hunting for new comments.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:22:58 pm

To each of you posting comments and then saying I am not answering you YOU have to allow replies to have an answer. Simple, but effective.

Reply

Only Me

7/29/2016 06:29:23 pm

Okay. Attempt #4.

Why haven't you answered my question? If real facts and words matter, why won't you acknowledge the clearly unprofessional, libelous attack made by your business partner?

Are you, Hutton Pulitzer, in favor of a double-standard?

You are now free to respond.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:37:14 pm

Only Me, I cannot answer for Scott on that. Would seem obvious. Also, Scott does not answer people who do not use their real identities. But I do. I think people hide for a reason, but they deserve some attention too and I am happy to make your day and give you some attention and make you feel important. But as far as answer for Scott relating to you, come out from the shadows and ask Scott maybe?

Big Tony

7/29/2016 06:37:40 pm

Don't hold your breath.

Only Me

7/29/2016 06:44:53 pm

I'm not asking you to speak for Scott. I want to know if you think it's okay for your business partner to actually commit libel against two of his critics. This is relevant, since you are pursuing a lawsuit against Jason for the purpose of protecting yourself, Wolter and your company.

If you ignore the fact Wolter has committed the same offense you claim Jason has, you are displaying a double-standard.

Also, you're wrong on two things. 1) Wolter has responded to many comments posted on his blog under "Anonymous". 2) Your belief I can only feel important because you responded to me is not only laughable, it proves you are NOT a recovering ass-aholic.

GEE

7/29/2016 08:27:41 pm

ONLY ME...
It seems Hutton has Scott captive., you will never get an answer from Scott., he's to cowardly to stand up to this crowd., Hutty just likes the attention.

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:41:18 pm

FOR Big Tony so big he cant allow a reply post: Here you go. Ready PROVE YOUR FACTS. Here is your quote "From your sound cloud post, where you claim your goal to not allow authorities or academics to get involved and hide the truth."" ..... No Big Man, be the BIG man and post right on up that audio and share with us ALL where either Scott or I said that. And man up puss and have some gonads for reply

Reply

Big Tony

7/29/2016 06:53:15 pm

Starting at 16:30 in the sound cloud

Hutton: "With any researcher or explorer, the only thing that confirms it is when you, yourself, your team, your documentation team can physically take them out of the ground yourself, and can document it themselves. And that's what's been missing is a lot of these have been found by people, but when they feel they're doing the right thing and calling the local authorities and state archaeologist and some of these others get involved, literally everything disappears."

Reply

Big Tony

7/29/2016 06:57:18 pm

At 18:15 in the sound cloud

Wolter: "This is not in your typical situation, where archaeologists have control of the site. There is, this is a site that is completely unknown, it has not been studied in any specific detail." ... "This opportunity is once in a lifetime, we are going to sieze that opportunity."

Reply

Big Tony

7/29/2016 07:04:06 pm

At 23:00 in the sound cloud

Wolter: "Believe me, if that bone turns out to be as big as it was, and the rest of the bones turn out to be as big.. if they match this then we'll have something big to report."

So there you go. You are planning to dig up bones. Archaeologists or others in an official capacity don't know about the site. You say that calling the authorities is a mistake that makes "literally everything disappear", strongly implying that you won't do the same.

Big Tony

7/29/2016 07:00:38 pm

If you can't reply to those (the option is showing up on my screen, but I'm unsure if I need to put an email to allow replies from others and would rather not needlessly put my email out there), reply to your own above post in response please.

Reply

Clint Knapp

7/30/2016 12:34:25 am

Don't worry about it, Tony.

Our "top 50" inventor-of-all-time is simply displaying ignorance as to how a simple web script works.

No one can turn off the Reply button, and no omission of information will do it automatically. Weebly's software simply limits the number of nested Reply comments and stops adding a Reply button after so many replies to replies.

If Jovan cared to notice, simply clicking the last reply button in a comment layer would suffice to add a reply to a reply's reply and display it properly.

But, tech-geniuses who shape the way the world functions don't have to know basic web coding; a fact his own websites make abundantly clear.

Clint Knapp

7/30/2016 12:38:54 am

Further, the only one who can see your e-mail when added to a reply is Jason. It can be a decent countermeasure to prove who's the real you in the event someone tries to post under your name (as trolls have been wont to do around here from time to time).

Website links added to the reply form, however, will turn your name into a hyperlink for that website.

Big Tony

7/29/2016 11:40:53 pm

You call me puss, you tell me to have gonads and reply, yet you won't do the same when confronted with facts.

What does that say about you?

Reply

RW Taylor

7/30/2016 03:33:38 pm

I await the sassy rebuttal, since he has the gonads and replied with direct quotes AND timestamps from the Soundcloud!

Reply

Jim

7/29/2016 06:42:47 pm

Hutton, the question was directed to you not Scott. Work on your reading comprehension skills.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:48:10 pm

Jim, might be better to note what you are talking about since so many are in the fray of fiction. Thus try again and I will answer YOUR question.

Reply

Jim

7/29/2016 06:50:36 pm

Would you please answer the question from Only Me ?????

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:47:03 pm

For Bug Puss Mike, here is your reply with no reply option........ YOU SAID """You have demonstrated a racist disrespect for Native American culture on numerous occasions""" Now PLEASE post up those quotes and their URL and lets examine and see the veracity of what you suggest as fact! LOL facts matter

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:52:08 pm

To Only Me Try allowing reply. Next on the ass-a-holic. Yes, there is an assaholic and then there is being allergic to asses. You sire hide in the dark, with no name, below the line, thus you are on par with an ass. So, NO I cannot answer for Scott, but assuming you hide since you are the topic of subject then I understand. Here is what I suggest. Lets take what Scott has gathered as his case for Academic Fraud and then you slink out and let the folks see the verdict? Then we can all know, but it does require coming into them light but thats....only me and how I chose to handle it.

Reply

Only Me

7/29/2016 07:01:49 pm

Wolter made his case on his blog:

http://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/2016_02_01_archive.html

It isn't until he responds to comments that the accusation of academic fraud rears its head.

Your challenge is accepted. By the way, your personal opinion of me is irrelevant. Remember, FACTS and WORDS matter.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 07:13:35 pm

In response, seems Scott went to the time, effort, citations and science to build he case. So, I am still trying to see your issue. Is there a rebuttal there somewhere. I will do this. We get on average 100k listeners to each of our educational audio, so how about i get Scott and you get who you think has been wrongly libeled and accused and lets do it in a civil manner, present each side, with time for rebuttals and allow the audience to decide. Would it not be worth such to have a open record of such rebuttal and would not any audience benefit from both sides. You can message me in almost any social media I will arrange. No over talking, no shouting or name calling, just point by point and case by case and we can work on a pre approved outline i you need such and we will do this civil

Only Me

7/29/2016 07:27:29 pm

My issue is the fact Wolter accused the late Richard Nielsen and Professor Henrick Williams of perpetrating academic fraud, BUT, his documentation from that blog post doesn't support the accusation.

You are pursuing a lawsuit against Jason for libel, but refuse to acknowledge you are in a partnership with a man who has done exactly that, and even now, you're trying to handwave it away.

Double-standard, Hutton. There is no need to debate this. I have given everyone here the evidence and the source. I'm allowing them to visit that source and read all of it for themselves, just like you wanted.

John (the other one)

7/29/2016 07:11:24 pm

Academic Fraud? That implies something academic is taking place. The only thing the two of you have is fraud.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:54:05 pm

Jim, answering ONLY ME- where he asked """"why won't you acknowledge the clearly unprofessional, libelous attack made by your business partner?"""" Lets lay all the facts out, one by one, check the facts and see where the chips fall AND if they are libel or not. More than happy to do such. That is my answer and challenge

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 06:59:52 pm

Big Puss Mike- you said """""You made statements and claims that outright state that you will not involve the authorities or academics in a potential archaeological dig... THAT is grave robbing and therefore any statement made about it is NOT libel.""""" CORRECT STATEMENT: The actual statement was "Archaeologist do not have CONTROL of the site". So you see you have BOTH been lead astray by Jason (figures, no one here cares about facts) and jasons title and words and url state ROB, suggesting criminal act. Now, What I personally think is funny is WHEN you see WHO is really involved your tantrums here are really going to reflect bad on you. See, Scott and I do nothing small. Everything we do is big, history making, media covered and very detailed. Now yes, I do know that jason appeared on a local cable TV show once and got cut from another show after they filmed him (sad really) but you take as your source for facts, a man who has none and makes them up to SUCKER YOU SUCKERS into reading. What a waste of breath really.

Reply

TheBigMike

7/29/2016 07:30:36 pm

Yes, and you said that when people "feel they are doing the right thing" in calling academics and authorities, you believe that "literally everything disappears." You and Wolter then talk about how the site is not under the CONTROL of authorities and academics and that you will then be able to make a huge discovery... meaning that you will not give CONTROL of the site to the proper authorities and academics... The only logical conclusion is that you will not involve the authorities and academics that you fear will make "literally everything disappear"

By the way... thanks for the "Big Puss Mike" moniker (that means "name"). Knowing that I have garnered an angry nickname lets me know that I'm really bugging you. Have a nice day, sweety.

Reply

Raparee

7/30/2016 10:36:38 am

"Everything we do is big, history making..."

Really? Please outline some of the history that you and Wolter have made.

Reply

E.P. Grondine

7/30/2016 10:00:37 pm

Hi Raparee -

Are you familiar with paranoid schizophrenia with delusions of grandeur?

Or coherent delusional frameworks?

Denise

7/29/2016 07:04:37 pm

Like Andy getting tired of scrolling , posting to get email updates.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 07:07:47 pm

TO ALL: We really should cut to the chase here. Jason made books based on Scotts work and it brought him some recognition from the "skeptic and academic set" who just wished they had a TV show. Smart move on Jason's part he hooked onto what is hot and is riding the way, as he does with me and my work. That is smart marketing. He knows we have a huge following and he is riding our coat tails. I do not fault him that. What I do fault him is allowing his personal "enchantment and desire" feelings for Scott and his attempts to get close to him and his attention to stand in the way. You see, once his affections where shunned, then he went on the attack and started more and even included Scott's wife in the attack. Now I do not grudge anyone their attractions and yes Jason is kind cute in a Charley Brown kinda way, but he is one a personal attack like a spurned lover . Thats just wrong and each of you eat it up and feed his fatal attraction and stalking ways. His affectionate and pleading emails to Scott are 100% different from the tone of his post here, but I understand he has a "fierce attack dog" reputation to keep up for you, but to beg and plea and try to smooth talk Scott in emails are really repulsive. For me, I think Jason just needs to find another personal focus, or maybe even a mate and then focus on putting out real work and reviews, ethical and critical reviews, not schlock attacks with half truths, untruths and out right lies just to attack back for his spurned feelings.

Reply

Bob Jase

7/29/2016 07:16:07 pm

So how many more decades do we have to wait for you two to present some hard evidence up for peer review?

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 07:21:27 pm

Bob Jase, what is your topic? You did not state?

Big Puss Mike

7/29/2016 07:42:08 pm

Here, Hutton, I do think that Bob is asking when you or Scott Wolter will present hard evidence for proper peer review on LITERALLY ANY TOPIC YOU CAN IMAGINE. You know, REAL scientific research. If Scott wants to go back to geology and write a proper paper on concrete decomposition or granite erosion in a desert and then put that paper up for peer review, I would gain a salt-grain of respect for him. If you want to do some actual research on smething of scientific value and you come up with some hard evidence to back it up, submit a paper for peer-review. I'll give you some respect for that too. But you won't. Neither of you will. You either do not understand the purpose of peer-review or somewhere in the back of your mind you might know that your claims don't stand up to scrutiny. Or possibly you're both so egotistical that you can't imagine that you might possibly be wrong and therefore anyone that disagrees with you must be out to get you.

Big Tony

7/29/2016 07:24:46 pm

"Thats just wrong and each of you eat it up and feed his fatal attraction and stalking ways."

Hutton, you just accused Jason of stalking. Is this not libel by your logic?

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 08:06:20 pm

Big Tony, here is your libel lesson..Stalking is not a crime. Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group towards another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. NOW, on the other hand saying someone ROBBED something, well ROB and the ACT OF ROBBING is a crime, by act and definition. Lesson shared

Minn. Stat. § 609.749. Stalking; Penalties. (2010)
Subdivision 1. Definition. As used in this section, "stalking" means to engage in conduct which the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated;, and causes this reaction on the part of the victim regardless of the relationship between the actor and victim.

Only Me

7/29/2016 08:11:43 pm

"Stalking Laws

Stalking is a relatively new crime now on the books in every state. Stalking laws in most states pertain to a relatively new crime involving a clear pattern of conduct in which the offender follows, harasses, or threatens another person, putting that person in fear for his or her safety. An individual may be charged with stalking regardless of any pre-existing relationship with the victim. Stalking victims can range from celebrities to former spouses who have obtained a protective order against their ex."

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/stalking.html

Denise "wannbe"

7/29/2016 07:27:59 pm

I think I just threw up in my mouth. Guys this (actually not sure what this is) "conversation" is an endless cycle of nothing.

I believe we are feeding the beast here, giving him publicity and attention that he obviously enjoys and doesn't deserve. Whatever the intentions are here, we will find out eventually.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/30/2016 12:41:27 pm

You actually Denise are the only one offering truth and solid advice worth repeating: ""Whatever the intentions are here, we will find out eventually.""""

Every comment here is based on what Jason insinuated and not fact or realities. (1) Not a grave (2) Not native (3) Not robbing (4) Does have archaeologist involved (5) Does have many scientists involved

LOL, and I sit back and the naiveté and gullibility of this group... ready WHAT IF..... WHAT IF..... ready for this???/ its not even in North America? LOLOLOLOLOL

Hook line sinker, and caught Jason spinning a story FOR HIS GROUP AND POINTS and on all points HE MADE THEM UP.

Hook line sinker LOLOLOLOLOLOL

So, yes Denise, wait and see and then scream

Big Puss Mike

7/29/2016 07:51:05 pm

I will be making this my last comment on this particular thread. I have gotten under Puttzer's skin and been an irritant and I enjoyed that. I will not, however, indulge him after he has gone on to his "arm-chair" psychology phase. You're attempts to "analyze" Jason are merely rhetoric filed smear pieces that only serve to reinforce the vision everyone already has of you: a bully that cannot take what he tries to dish out. Jason has stated repeatedly that his blog does not rely on Scott Wolter. His books do not rely on Scott Wolter.
I read this blog because unlike you and Wolter, Hutton, Jason actually takes the time to find reputable, reliable, and valid sources and he properly cites them.
You and Wolter lack any credibility because you actively work against the scientific method.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 08:04:14 pm

Big Puss, my last paper had over 1000 cited sources, so you make be lacking on your facts once again. facts matter

Peter Geuzen

7/29/2016 08:52:23 pm

What paper?

John (the other one)

7/29/2016 09:10:35 pm

Yeah, please give the citation and don't worry I have access to a university library system at home so I will be able to get almost any journal article.

Raparee

7/30/2016 10:40:35 am

Having 1000 cited sources is meaningless if the sources you're citing are garbage.

RW Taylor

7/30/2016 01:23:07 am

Here we are, exactly what I expected to see. When things get busy you fall back on the old "So-and-so was a gay stalker" for sympathy like you did in this interview :

Sitting here telling us that Jason has "enchantment and desire", and "affections were shunned" is pretty blatantly calling him out as gay, which he may or may not be, but that bit shouldn't be used to try to insult someone in this day and age.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/30/2016 12:38:06 pm

Randal, the issue is Jason being spurred by Scott, so unlike your clouded view and still might I add, jumping in on me, the issue is Jason should not single out Scott just because of personal rebuke. Thats the issue. No one has any issue with anyones sexuality, what is at issue is taking offense and regularly attacking someone for not receiving ones affections. That is a straight and LGBT issue combined. NO ONE should be the focus of rhetoric and attacks for refusing someones unwanted admirations and such. Keep the focus on the topic.

Only Me

7/30/2016 01:31:27 pm

"No one has any issue with anyones sexuality, what is at issue is taking offense and regularly attacking someone for not receiving ones affections. That is a straight and LGBT issue combined."

Since the topic is your planned exhumation of human remains, you're the one injecting non-related subjects. Follow your own advice and "keep the focus on the topic."

E.P. Grondine

7/30/2016 10:40:59 pm

Hi only me -

It is clear that Mr. Pullitzer has no idea what the issue is, just as he has no idea of the principles of science.

Are you familiar with paranoid schizophrenia with delusions of grandeur?

However, I am not qualified to evaluate anyone's mental health. I will not speculate about Pulitzer's, even if I disagree with him. I also will not speculate about his beliefs, as I don't know what they are.

Sticker

7/30/2016 10:56:51 am

Aside from this premise being ridiculous (when I worked in the media world, an obsequious --- even groveling --- approach was the norm when approaching "celebrities," in order to get them to agree to appear. I groveled and pleaded, but I certainly wasn't in love with any of them.), it's also a depressingly regressive ad hominem. Gay isn't a pejorative anymore, and I don't think any of us care one way or the other about Jason's sexuality. We come here because we're interested in his research and analysis (and occasional spoof writing) --- which he does for his own satisfaction in his spare time, and which he was doing for many years before your company or "America Unearthed" were featured topics.

Reply

Kathleen

7/29/2016 07:20:26 pm

Wow! I felt very uncomfortable reading this comment. How did you veer into homoerotica?

Reply

Peter Geuzen

7/29/2016 07:30:04 pm

On day after posting, the recording only has 366 listens as I post this. Very telling. Will the number climb and how fast???...we shall see.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 08:02:58 pm

Peter, not too sure of your comment but the plays are pretty even daily and today alone has gone up another 180 the last hour. So... not sure what your point is... maybe Jason generated all the traffic?

Reply

Clint Knapp

7/29/2016 10:37:53 pm

Yeah. Probably.

Andy White

7/29/2016 07:51:51 pm

Yeah . . . You may want to pay Steve (or whoever) his/her $800/hour to listen to that podcast, read through these comments, and evaluate whether or not you're helping your case here. I'll give you my opinion for free: no.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/29/2016 08:01:14 pm

Andy, in fact Steve once Jason made his libel statements had to listen. Still did not change what Jason did. You have some experience at that as well.

Reply

Big Tony

7/29/2016 08:18:30 pm

Hutton, in these comments you have accused Jason of stalking (you are mistaken in claiming that stalking is not a crime). If him using the word rob is libel, so is this. Ask Steve about it next time you send him a $400 email.

Andy White

7/29/2016 08:27:36 pm

So, to clarify (please correct me if I'm wrong): you and Wolter discussed plans to dig with the purpose of unearthing bones of what you two suppose (based on your examination of photographs) are the remains of an exceptionally large human. Is that correct?

Hutton Pulitzer

7/30/2016 12:31:51 pm

Andy WHY ask a question of ME and not enable replies? How do you expect to get an answer?

Klaus

7/30/2016 03:55:38 pm

still not getting it ?

hint: it was explained earlier in this thread that reply is only available until x deep reply / reply iterations, with no user selectable reply on/off function this seems a quite logical explanation even a complete moron should be able to grasp ...

Andy White

7/30/2016 04:06:41 pm

Wait-- what voodoo is this that allows you to post a comment WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A REPLY BUTTON? Remarkable!

Klaus

7/31/2016 05:45:31 pm

Thanks Andy ;)

the trick to the weebly reply function was explained earlier,
so between vodoo/genius/basic reading comprehension I
need to admit to the lesser of the three .. but still ^^

Klaus

RW Taylor

7/30/2016 01:33:09 am

I don't think that a business lawyer is going to jump into a fight where someone is screaming libel and slander. They are specialized in the US, unfortunately some people want to scream that they have a lawyer just to scare others.

http://www.rklawtexas.com/attorneys.html

Steve Green has over 25 years experience representing companies in business and commercial transactions. He regularly represents businesses in all aspects of mergers and acquisitions, franchises and all types of business transactions. Steve also regularly handles probate, wills and estate planning, and regulatory law (including obtaining liquor licenses).

Randal, yes what it took for you was both our attorney, a local Nova Scotia and for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to give you and your brother a call. BUT, I would remind you one thing the sergeant told you. He specifically told you and your brother to not contact us again, to not troll us again and to not over post us to start trouble again. Seems you forgot yourself. Maybe time for a revisit?

RW Taylor

7/30/2016 03:45:28 pm

Actually, it was myself that contacted the RCMP once my name was being dragged around and you had decided to toss in Ryan's for good measure, at a time when Ryan had no access to a computer nor the internet. No contact by your lawyer occurred, and since this isn't your blog and you decided, not only once but multiple times, to respond to comments, then it seems like your own problem.

You seem to be foggy on what you recall, to make it seem that you were the victim in this circumstance. I do recall that the complaint was regarding Facebook spam reports, and how it got so bad that you went into a fit and pointed so many fingers you ran out and had to use toes.

I know that I had appealed to Facebook no less than 14 times during the event, and according to their policies they end up tracing via IP the users accounts and suspend them likewise. As I recall, my account stayed in good standing and yours was suspended for some time, and you created a false account to continue using Facebook.

Would you like a refresher from the final email of the RCMP officer?

"Gentlemen,

As per our separate discussions today, I wanted to send this e-mail to all three of you to be clear on what we discussed.

First, the police file I have documented this complaint on is the in the e-mail title, should you need to reference this.

This issue seems to be one that has been long standing. It has escalated to a point that both sides feel the other is the instigator and the aggressor. The reality is, from what I have been provided for information, both sides are party to the contact. There have allegedly been things done by both sides that are uncalled for and not appropriate, regardless of method of contact. At this time, from speaking with all of you, this contact is unwanted by all sides. Consider this as notice that all involved do not want to be contacted by the other side. I have advised all parties that it is in everyone's best interest to cease communicating, as continued unwanted contact could be interpreted as Criminal Harassment going forward. If the contact does persist I encourage you all to document it, and remind the person that you do not want them contacting you. If it persists, I encourage you to report the matter to your local police agency for investigation.

As far as Facebook posts being reported and content removed, it is happening on both sides. I would hope that your respective groups can cease this activity if they are in any way involved, and if the issues persist I encourage you to report it to Facebook for them to look further into. Please keep in mind that differences in opinion on certain topics are out there and freedom of speech is a right we all enjoy. When something is posted on social media you open yourself to those differing opinions. As long as it is done in a respectful way this is not an offence.

I hope this puts these back and forth exchanges to rest, and you all can move forward.

Andy, the moment Jason posted libel accusing us of crimes, the audio was listened to legally and cleared and Jason to far ranging liberties in his commentary and presentation. Just as you do many times. But see he is a little different than you. Where you have the University now watching your posting and comments to access their liability, Jason on the other hand accused scot and I of crimes committed and planned and did so with 3 states involved. Jason has an issue and the sooner he stops taking liberties, the sooner his issues - legal issues- go away.

Reply

Only Me

7/30/2016 01:19:32 pm

"Andy, the moment Jason posted libel accusing us of crimes"

Since it has been proven stalking is a crime in all 50 states, your accusation of stalking against Jason would fall under your definition of libel.

Please avoid comments that are abusive, threatening or harassing, or that are personal attacks of any kind. I retain the discretion to lock the comment thread if I see more of these types of comments.

Reply

GEE

7/29/2016 09:21:15 pm

Please tell Hutton to stop calling members of this blog, Pussys, he gets away with too much, its over the top, so he should receive over the top responses. Signed - disappointed about unprofessionalism

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/30/2016 12:27:59 pm

GEE- Gina Toresso here is what is unprofessional. 1. Using fake names to try to get into social media. 2. Pleading to be let back in and that you are a supported when on the same days you are posting elsewhere rhetoric and hate 3 . You dear lost one, wrote the book on unprofessional and not we know your purpose, write that book on trolling and the act thereof and become famous.

Kathleen

7/29/2016 09:33:50 pm

Agreed, quit with the potty mouth....everyone!

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/30/2016 12:28:57 pm

What an awesome standard jason and lets see IF it works both ways and in all posts. Post by the Pseudos and the Colavitos

Reply

Only Me

7/30/2016 01:20:54 pm

And the Pulitzers.

GEE

7/30/2016 05:37:27 pm

Hutton, you are a fraud and a fake, your lies are so numerous I lost count.. who is really listening to you when you are talking about your own personal matters with individuals? I hope you read my post above, it is a FACT - you contact Attorney with complaint, at that point you are no longer allowed to contact said defendant. FACTS Matter, ... The FACT of the matter is, I am not interested in Hutton himself, get your FACTS straight, I'm interested in the FACTS in which you are not providing to any of your listeners or followers. FACT of the matter is you are all about the next dollar... you could care less who you are digging up and for what the reason is, as long as you can put out a self-published book, with no tangible truth to it., and no PEER review. FACT is I would rather eat dirt than spend 1 dollar... I don't have to have access to any of your sites to see your posts or your podcasts or sound clouds that have no plausible teaching involved,on any subject. You are on a social media... you cant block everyone from destroying our said truths.

RW Taylor

7/29/2016 09:42:08 pm

Jason Colavito : Warrior for Truth

Reply

John (the other one)

7/29/2016 10:10:23 pm

Hutton,

I asked three questions (maybe more) you didn't answer.

1) what is the name of the archaeologist on your dig? (You argued with my statement that you weren't using one so therefore you must be using one)

2) what is the name of your law school textbook and what law schools/courses use or have used it? (You state that you have written a law school course text book, who uses it for law courses?)

3) what is that paper citation of yours? I want to read to. (You said it has 1000 citations, this is an incredible number for a journal article, it must be a seminal work in some field. I have written extensively and my most 'important' discovery tops out in the hundreds)

Some unsolicited advice:
Name calling and fake law suits should have been left with the 'my dad could beat up your dad' baloney back in elementary school. It's a bullying tactic and frankly it doesn't do much to further your already waning popularity, the more people get wind of the sort of nonsense you are pulling on this blog today the less likely they are going to want to give you a tv show. High maintanence people that talk too much , are untrustworthy, and like to burn bridges just aren't worth working with.

Even fringe folk respect the work Jason does because as you have no doubt noticed due to your weird current fixation with Jason's website he has an audience most fringe folk don't have access to.

So I invite you once again to answer my questions, they should be easy and no your books on Amazon don't count, I can find those myself.

Reply

Harold Edwards

7/30/2016 12:49:08 am

The object of all of this seems to be much to do about nothing. The “giant” in question was 5'3" tall. See page 69 in “Dealing with Electric Pandas: Why It’s Worth Trying to Explain the Difference between Archaeology & Pseudoarchaeology,” in Field Notes: A Journal of Collegiate Anthropology, vol 5 at

http://www4.uwm.edu/StudentOrg/asu/Field_Notes.htm

They must have mixed up centimeters with inches. P.T. Barnum would show Messrs Wolter and Pulitzer the way to the “Tixe.”

Reply

Clint Knapp

7/30/2016 12:50:37 am

Don't forget to discount any copies of his books in college libraries from that first question. He's already tried to link having a book in a college library as an education credential before.

If we were to accept every book in a college library as a college textbook, we'd have to concede that when I read David and Leigh Eddings' Belgariad and Mallorean series I was in fact getting college credit since I obtained them through inter-library loan while in college. I suppose, too, A Princess of Mars would have counted as an astrophysics text book at that point.

Reply

Mike Morgan

7/30/2016 03:38:39 am

(For the benefit The Big Mike, aka Big Puss Mike, John (the other one), Peter Guezen, and others interest in the "1000 cited sources" item.)

Mr. "Facts Matter" "Words Matter" Pulitzer,

Using my spinoff of the CueCat, a "PlagiarismCat" to cut, copy, & paste, you stated in this thread:

Hutton Pulitzer 7/29/2016 08:04:14 pm

"Big Puss, my last paper had over 1000 cited sources, so you make be lacking on your facts once again. facts matter"

Do "facts matter" and "words matter" only apply to everyone else, but not you? You have ALWAYS been quite adamant about this "1000 cited sources" item being a REPORT, not a PAPER.

For example, from your blog at HistoryHeritic:
Political History Shows How History Is Political! Shifting Through The Truth
Hutton Pulitzer·Sunday, March 20, 2016
"Last week we released a report called the “Oak Island Roman Sword Scientific Report”. It is a massive download of education which includes thousands of references, numerous audio and video files and 200 pages of ebook packed with content, learning and education. However, the very moment the report was released, those who play politics with history began to criticise the REPORT for not being a WHITE PAPER. My answer to them was “Of course this report was not a white paper, it was a report on science and the scientific method” and thus aptly named a REPORT." And that is only one of MANY where you made sure people would know it is a REPORT.

Kevin Lamken There aren't any citations in the body of the report? What info came from what source? 13 hrs

From a post on March 20 by Andrew Lundstorm

Kevin Lamken The paper doesn't follow basic guidelines for research publishing. How would you know what source is providing what information without citations in the body of the paper? I don't think examining Hutton Pulitzer's report with the same critical eye he used with St. Mary's is out of bounds or drama. Criticism and evaluation does not equal drama. Debate is healthy and has to be allowed or the status quo reigns.
Like · 2 · 5 hrs
Hutton Pulitzer Kevin Lamkin the REPORT has over 1000 citations. Plus our records do not show you doing a successful open download thus what are you basing your comments on?
Like · 5 hrs
Kevin Lamken Compiling a list of every applicable source in the reference section isn't a citation.

Mike Morgan, few issues. The post of the person you posted never downloaded the report, thus how can he say there are no citations? Plus, you too have not downloaded the report, so what you posted was someone playing like they had, but posted junk not relevant since they had not. So how are your quotes relevant??

Klaus

7/30/2016 12:36:44 pm

little silly wanna-be genius JHP or whatever is his name keeps on pointing out his having-no-clue about anything whatsoever ... lol

Doug

8/1/2016 10:54:25 pm

Hutton: Has anyone downloaded your report? Or is this like your 100k listeners you claim to your pod casts? You are without doubt a pompas ass, maybe the worst I've come accross ever.

Hutton Pulitzer

7/30/2016 12:25:53 pm

John the other one:

The site, filming and total information will be released at the time the documentary is released.

Not sure how you can miss my books on Amazon unless you know not how to use Amazon?
https://www.amazon.com/Commander-Pulitzer/e/B00DDWBO52/

Have you downloaded the Oak Island Roman Sword Report? If not, you should

Easy peasy

Reply

John (the other one)

7/30/2016 01:21:16 pm

Hutton,

To try again:

1) what is the name of the archaeologist on your dig? (You argued with my statement that you weren't using one so therefore you must be using one)

If I understand this information is secret to be released later. Okay.

2) what is the name of your law school textbook and what law schools/courses use or have used it? (You state that you have written a law school course text book, who uses it for law courses?)

You still didn't answer this question, and I specified that an Amazon link wasn't what I was looking for, and that yes I do know how to use Amazon. None of the books you have on Amazon seem to be written in the style of a textbook. If you state it is a law school text that means a law school uses it as a text for a course, which schools and which courses?

3) what is that paper citation of yours? I want to read it. (You said it has 1000 citations, this is an incredible number for a journal article, it must be a seminal work in some field. I have written extensively and my most 'important' discovery tops out in the hundreds)

I think you are confusing things a little. When you say citations I'm thinking you means references? Where can I download your report? It is possible and likely that you have a citation that is also a reference but when you quite a number of citations as a boast usually it means the number of people who have used your document as a reference. Having a ton of references usually just means a long and oftentimes meaningless document.

Valerie Duffy

7/30/2016 12:34:09 am

Oh, if I could only insert a "(sic)" in other people's posts!

Reply

Kal

7/30/2016 01:11:25 am

I have looked into this current series of blog rants and the sources. I have determined through cursory means at first, that the blog is based on a misspoken word used in a headline.

After a longer analyses of the blog, and of the sound cloud, and of the odd spam I was getting, I have determined that only some of it is connected to this blog.

I have also looked into the oddities of this alleged law claim, and have determined there is no case here. If anything, the cloud conversation is more damaging to the credibility of the original speakers, those accusing this blog moderator of something, than it is to him. (I wouldn't want to name names).

Also I find it very interesting that the accuser has a very disturbing google blogger page, in which he makes some very odd inferences about life in general, conspiracies, and the government.

Be assured that if there was reason to actually put a tag on these guys checking out the grave site (I did not say why here) that the parks department of that organization has been notified. They know of both of them, not the blog but the sound cloud files, which they just obtained, and it is doubtful they will let either of the accusers onto their lands and certainly not to dig up anything on federal land. It is known that even taking a rock from a federal land is against the rules.

It appears one of the men overstepped his bounds and went too far by coming here, and the other man is kind of embarrassed at his actions, and submitted the sound files to the site people himself.

So no, it was not me. I don't have a stake in this. I am merely trolling, as usual.

But don't y'all think that over 200 replies to a typo is kind of silly.

Oh and you can't sue someone from having a different opinion.

And no, I will not name names. I apologize for mentioning a name in an earlier post. But it was contextual.

All this over some giant mammoth bones. Well can't say it hasn't been entertaining. I won't add this to my blogs though. Nope. This is all yours.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/30/2016 12:19:50 pm

Kal, since you seem to both know and have evaluated all, answer this one question: Where is the location in question that the park service has been notified of?

Reply

Klaus

7/30/2016 06:55:31 am

What a sad joke the clown is pulling ....

Guys like Popehat / Ken White might be glad to work against these clowns tries to supress free speach .. www.popehat.com

Laters
Klaus

Reply

E.P. Grondine

7/30/2016 12:11:08 pm

Since everyone here seems to be interested in exceptionally large people (at least be European standards), perhaps you may enjoy viewing this, which will explain it all for you:

https://youtu.be/OpYBsj0NNfI

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/30/2016 12:49:18 pm

TO ALL: Sorry but had to post this for each of you to enjoy the rush of comments and the real facts. When I commented originally there were a double hand full of comments, and as we proved we drive Jason's traffic counts, we sit here and just laugh at the irony of this. Each of you who state you are only moved by facts and are real researchers and such, just got taken for a ride by Jason. You accuse Scott and I only only trying to promote and get readers and listeners, but that is what Jason did intentionally to each of you. My reply to Denise, sets the facts and you have been duped and had and shows all you really care about is NOT facts, but hate and the dog pile. SUCKERS!

__---___---__
You actually Denise are the only one offering truth and solid advice worth repeating: ""Whatever the intentions are here, we will find out eventually.""""

Every comment here is based on what Jason insinuated and not fact or realities. (1) Not a grave (2) Not native (3) Not robbing (4) Does have archaeologist involved- many (5) Does have many scientists involved .... and,.....

LOL, and I sit back and the naiveté and gullibility of this group... ready WHAT IF..... WHAT IF..... ready for this???/ its not even in North America? LOLOLOLOLOL

Hook line sinker, and caught Jason spinning a story FOR HIS GROUP AND POINTS and on all points HE MADE THEM UP.

Hook line sinker LOLOLOLOLOLOL

So, yes Denise, wait and see and then scream

Reply

Sticker

7/30/2016 01:44:53 pm

I don't think my reply to you (in which I responded to each of your "where did you get that idea" questions with quotes and paraphrased info directly from your SoundCloud recording) was based on Jason insinuating anything. It was all based on the actual content of what you and Scott said, plus references to relevant law. From you all talking about how the bones in the photos are human remains and you will "pull these bones out in this location," which you identify as an "unknown site" uncontrolled by archaeologists, and document them so people can "see them coming out of the ground as they come out of the ground," it seems like a reasonable conclusion for people to come to that you are talking about digging up human remains yourselves instead of contacting the state archaeologist.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/31/2016 03:29:30 pm

Sticker, lets be a stickler for truth and facts "NO WHERE did we say "pull the bones out (as in from) the location" That sir is fabricated. facts matter

John (the other one)

7/30/2016 02:02:03 pm

Nope...every comment here is based on that pile of crap you posted on whatever thing you posted it on.

Just keep making it up as you go along just like a child.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/31/2016 03:28:28 pm

John, the other one.... just to prove you got OUR information and were rational and studied, and did not base your opinion on Jasons lies, where do you exactly get OUR information?

John (the other one)

7/31/2016 07:20:43 pm

From the place you posted it on the thing we all call the Internet.

Also, you still didn't address my question above...

DigDug

7/30/2016 03:05:36 pm

Good god man, get it together!

Even if someone disparages you, or you work, you cannot resort to spamming gibberish and LOL's on a public website. Have some decorum, pull yourself together. Stand up and be an adult.

You can't expect to be taken seriously if you act like a ranting 10 year old. No one will ever want to work with you again. Even Scott Wolter has enough dignity to not stoop to these levels.

Respected public personas don't conduct themselves as such. Take a deep breath and act like a professional, even under ridicule.

Behavior like this will haunt you.

Reply

Klaus

7/30/2016 04:11:13 pm

Amen

Hutton Pulitzer

7/31/2016 03:27:25 pm

Dig Dug, to call me 10 year old only can mean you did not read the groups comments and name calling. Each of you were sucked in by the kins sucker himself Jason, when he printed lies.

DigDug

7/31/2016 09:47:54 pm

I likened you to a ten year old because you wrote multiple "LOLOLOLOLOLOL" 's in your post.

What public professional does that? If someone is calling you names, take the high road, and ignore them.

If you expect people to take you seriously and give you respect, you cannot behave like that. It makes you seem immature and unstable. You must understand this? I don't know what else to say, it seems like common sense to me.

Doug

7/30/2016 09:35:41 pm

Hutton. You are using your "spin", insinuations, and out right lies on the wrong crowd. We come to this site for a breath of fresh air. We want to know there are sane people out there that will speak the truth. No matter what you think or say, you cannont intimidate this crowd. Most of us had heard of you before today, but now most of us know much more about you, more than I wanted to know. The reason there are so many posts to this blog is due to our outrage of what you and Wolter are planning. Then it became our outrage with you as a person. Thanks for giving us an education into what kind of a person you really are. As for your comment about not digging up human remains in the USA, it doesn't matter where your doing it, it's still wrong! Your the one who got "hooked" into this. You have to have the last word in anything. It's just your ego. You thrive on attention, positive or negative. You are not a "recovering" assholic. You are just an ass.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/31/2016 03:26:30 pm

Doug, facts matter, and thus each and every one of the weak minds on here gobbled jason gunk and without facts you all dog piled. Thus, for the record, cant something come out of the ground without digging? Why yes, many way... ready for it..... 3d scanning, and ready.... for another...... walking into an exposed tomb via landslide. aahhhhh see your all such idiots, you think Jason has the facts. Suckers gather suckers

Only Me

7/31/2016 04:08:26 pm

Except, Hutton, you said:

"With any researcher or explorer, the only thing that confirms it is when you, yourself, your team, your documentation team can physically take them out of the ground yourself, and can document it themselves."

This means, unless you disinter something from the site, you can't confirm anything. You are contradicting yourself.

Doug

7/31/2016 11:48:25 pm

Nice try Hutton, but I have to deal with Grandchildren who show more maturity than you. Especially my 3yr old and 8yr old who live with me. I said in a blog a short time ago that you should seek counseling. You obviously live in a world were the "facts" are what you think they should be.

Doug

8/1/2016 12:32:30 am

One last thing Philyaw - your use of the word "Pulitzer" for your name has forever tainted that word. People who know you and what your about will forever have negative images when we hear that word used even in other context. Thanks a lot.

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 10:47:47 am

As you keep trying to dig down on me, whats your particular set of qualifications versus work product- other than being a web troll?

Assonaut Exaterressial

7/31/2016 10:52:49 pm

So this was a setup by you Mr. Philyaw? Hook line and sinker implies planned entrapment.

I'll have to scan it with my Cuecat to check veracity.

http://www.fastcompany.com/48220/where-they-are-now

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 04:50:44 pm

Assonaut, when was the last time a major magazine wrote about you? Me, I have been in many, both in the good times and the dot com bust times. It happens when you do big things. How about you?

Assonaut Exaterressial

8/1/2016 08:20:15 pm

Unfortunately for you, I neither crave attention nor monitory gain. I make a very comfortable six figure salary as a lowly educator who is good at his job. The highlight of last year was to have a student tell me that I saved two of her friends from suicide.

I don't endeavor to do "big" things; only worthwhile things. Arguing pointlessly over giants that don't exist may be big (hehe, get it?), but is not worthwhile.

Denise

7/30/2016 02:38:51 pm

Stop feeding the beast.... This (engagement) is going nowhere. He is baiting everyone, and everyone is getting hooked.

I have clearly stated where I am coming from. I fully support Jason's work, and respect the patience and due diligence he does in his research (I don't have that kind willpower, so I have never published, because if I do so I want to do it right).

I am speaking as someone who deals with general public everyday. While I attempt to provoke people's misconceptions they my have of past events, I have learned over the years when to spot the time to let it go.....

Can I take a shower now?

Reply

Jim

7/30/2016 03:49:32 pm

Wait,,, what,, are we still discussing the "Giants in Minnesota" podcast or is there another one out there. I think I see where the disconnect is here ! Perhaps the title should be changed to "Giants in Minnesota and other undisclosed super secret locations somewhere on the planet"

Reply

Denise

7/30/2016 04:20:02 pm

Hey Jim,

I truely believe it doesn't matter anymore, we are at the point where there is no actual debate happening.
anything said at this point will not affect anything. At this point I will again plead to let it go.....is this really worth giving Jason uneeded derision that is unwarrented? I am amazed at Jason's fortitude to stand by his guns and not bow to the threats aimed at him, and cause him to close down the discussion.

Really Jason you have incredible patience and guts to take the ranting here, especially the truely disgusting one regarding you and Scott (still taking nausea pills over that one). All I can say is good luck.

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

7/31/2016 03:06:23 pm

Since we've established that J. Jovan Philyaw will make outlandish statements with no backup, let's just make a game out of making them for him.

J. Jovan Philyaw invented the weasel.

J. Jovan Philyaw was once in an Insane Clown Posse New Wave cover band, Irrational Scaramoucherie, which once opened Bruce Springsteen - not opened for, just opened. He gained his legal experience in the subsequent litigation over claims to have a surgeon's license from the Sultan of Brunei.

J. Jovan Philyaw once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

J. Jovan Philyaw wrote a book on the Declaration of Independence. Specifically on the back of it. This was dramatized in the based-on-a-true-story movie "National Treasure." The Philyaw part was cut after test audiences were confused by the presence of a bellowing bull in the film.

J. Jovan Philyaw was the inspiration for the legend of Paul Bunyan, specifically, the steam saw, a device powered by hot air prone to frequent breakdowns and explosive venting.

J. Jovan Philyaw holds a patent for fur coats for whales.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

7/31/2016 03:24:03 pm

Grunt, who is over educated. Lets see, you cannot debate or embrace the facts, thus you try to play kindergarten games? Thats called deflection. A game played by losers who have lost the topic and debate at hand, thus must change the subject. Old but very worn subject. See how many in this thread cannot debate the facts that Jason baited each of your weak minds .

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

7/31/2016 04:24:08 pm

Nope, it's mockery. I certainly could debate you, but that'd require that I consider you worth more than mockery.

J. Jovan Philyaw once threatened to sue his own mother for trademark infringement over shared DNA.

Grunt, yes I have invented many things and each of you with a smart phone use my technology. My latest creation? This entire thread !

Reply

John (the other one)

8/1/2016 06:09:06 pm

Incorrect, you don't know how to solder or code you have nothing to do with my devices. You are a patent troll.

And someone with much more interesting then you created this site. It's just based on the crap you posted in the Internet.

Why can't you answer my questions?

David Cusack

8/4/2016 07:08:44 pm

Wow, the sign of a true megalomaniac.

I am sure your mommy gave you great praise for making poopies as a child, too!

GEE

7/31/2016 05:25:38 pm

GEE GINA wishes there was a like button... thank you GRUNT!

Reply

Sticker

7/31/2016 08:11:51 pm

Hutton, you did in fact say it, starting at 23:18. I transcribed it from the recording: "Our commitment is to do a thorough investigation, and for the very, very first time in history that we know of, pull these bones out in this location, and you see them coming out of the ground as they come out of the ground." Please stop accusing others of carelessness with facts when you yourself have either somehow forgotten what you said on your own recording from a couple of days ago or are purposely misrepresenting what you said after the fact. Everyone can find that particular quote at about 23 minutes and 18 seconds in.

Reply

Andy White

7/31/2016 08:28:17 pm

Yes, that is the passage that gave me the impression that Pulitzer and Wolter were planning on excavating with the intent of finding and removing human remains. I'm not sure how or why a reasonable person would interpret it otherwise. I'm not sure what else they could mean by "pull these bones out in this location, and you see them coming out of the ground as they come out of the ground." That seems pretty clear to me.

Reply

Sticker

7/31/2016 08:53:29 pm

And we also know that, whatever the remains turn out to be, both men believe them to be human remains.

At about 16 min. 13 sec. in, Hutton says: "We have literally looked at photographs of human remains, which I'll let Scott explain in a minute, that are more than an equal measure of size larger than the average human remains, but in fact they are human."

Then at about 17 min. 36 sec. in, Scott says, of one of the photographs in question: "There's no question it's a human bone."

It appears that they believe that the bones they are discussing pulling out of the ground are human.

Jim

8/1/2016 12:37:33 am

Two quotes by JHP

"Every comment here is based on what Jason insinuated and not fact or realities. (1) Not a grave (2) Not native (3) Not robbing (4) Does have archaeologist involved- many (5) Does have many scientists involved .... and,....."

"cant something come out of the ground without digging? Why yes, many way... ready for it..... 3d scanning, and ready.... for another...... walking into an exposed tomb via landslide. "

So it's a tomb, not a grave ! Well then,,,,,,um,,,,,er,,, I don"t think that changes anything there Hutton !

Jim

8/1/2016 01:19:51 am

By the way Jovan, you misspelled or used the wrong word in the second quote. Cant or Cant hook is a tool used in the lumber industry, also known as a peavey. To use it in a sentence,,,,,I threw my cant hook at a tree on Oak Island and I will be darned, when I pulled it out, the point stayed embedded in the tree!

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 10:42:06 am

Andy, "out of this location" is key. Not the alarming lies Jason put forth as (1) native and (2) grave

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 10:39:28 am

Sticker, Lets look at the possible various meanings:
1. From the ground could be:
A. Grave
B. Flooded area
C. Tomb
D. Cave
F. ground but not crave site
G. Overhang, collapsed.
H. Building underground
I. Pre-Dulival site

Could be many things..Thus everyone is jumping to conclusions

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

8/1/2016 11:10:35 am

J. Jovan Philyaw once jumped to a conclusion so hard a tsunami alert was called in Jakarta when he landed.

Bob Jase

8/1/2016 11:11:39 am

So robbing an accidental grave doesn't count as grave robbing?

You can't push someone off a cliff and then accuse them of jumping.

Sticker

8/1/2016 11:48:10 am

Hutton, I suppose if your intention was to be cryptic, the phrase "from the ground" could theoretically inspire slightly different interpretations, but you also clearly say in the recording that you are planning to "pull these bones out." What about that part? I don't think any reasonable person could interpret that in a way that does not involve disturbing/removing the bones from their current position at the site.

Also, it doesn't matter legally whether it's a purposeful burial or the result of someone dying in the wilderness and nature taking its course. What matters is that they are (or you at least currently believe them to be) human bones at an "unknown" (unreported) site that, judging from your own words, you are evidently planning on pulling out of the ground. Knowingly disturbing human remains (whether on public or private land) instead of reporting them to the proper authorities is a pretty big no-no in this country (in some places an automatic felony, and in others it could be a felony or a misdemeanor depending on the severity of the disturbance).

I also feel the need to mention the "native" issue again, as I have seen you repeatedly imply that the bones are not or may not be Native American and therefore the laws surrounding native bones do not apply. The problem is, that determination cannot legally be made by you or I, regardless of whatever reasons we may have to believe that they belong to ancient European travelers or settlers or anyone else. It's my understanding that a state entity, such as the state archaeologist, is required to make that determination and deal with NAGPRA and any repatriation/removal/reburial of the remains. It isn't up to individual members of the public to make the determination of ancestry, so there is no way that you can make a definitive statement one way or the other about the ethnic origin of the remains in those photographs --- and certainly not one that would absolve you of the responsibility of reporting them, or at the very least, respectfully leaving them undisturbed.

Mandalore

7/31/2016 10:21:55 pm

I can't believe what a shithead Hutton Pulitzer is. This whole thing is just so ludicrous that it's not funny anymore. What a sad display.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 10:42:50 am

Mandalore, your comments represent this group and its style of thinking well. Great representation

Reply

rudes rerum

8/1/2016 04:36:19 am

I'm not so called "educated" at least not how people mean it. I'm just a regular guy who has a love for history and archeology. However I can read and do alot of it and believe it or not I can make logically sound conclusions like for instance mr. Pulitzer/philyaw whatever your name is since you cannot decide are to put in my uneducated wording a joke you have constantly contradicted yourself and continue to use the same exact same argument time and time again through out this comment thread. Last time I checked which was about 5 minutes ago you in fact have made no actual archeological discoveries of any significance. You are a self proclaimed expert and a money hungry hypocrite. It saddens me because you could actually be putting your resources to use on doing actual worth while campaigns. So I've been fairly transparent in that I'm no expert and have no degree and my words hols no real weight so do try to take my words with a grain of salt.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 10:44:24 am

Rudes rerum, my name is jovan hutton pulitzer. Same on my id, drivers license, state department id, credit cards and so on. So no confusion for me or the federal government, just slow ones like you, who read internet rhetoric.....

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

8/1/2016 11:14:22 am

J. Jovan Philyaw has many forms of identification, but the most often used is a Frequent Fryer's Club card identifying him as the Count of Monte Cristo.

Doug

8/1/2016 11:18:27 pm

Mr Pulitzer/philyaw could have finished the "white paper" if he put as much effort into that as he has in this comment stream!

Reply

Jim

8/1/2016 09:22:20 am

Jason,,I hope you do a review of JHPs Latest Sword vs St Marys rant.
I would rather poke needles in my eyeballs than listen to it again however, there is some low hanging fruit just waiting for you !
At about the 1 hr 2 min mark he tries to discredit Dr Brosseau by using the claim that rice was patented in 1997. Thats right,,, rice !

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 10:46:00 am

Jim, read the report, both of them. St Marys was based on the patent for electowinning as dating, I used the rice comparison to show one CANNOT GO by patent dates. Facts matter, you just twisted the facts. Read the report and learn. Made for a funny comment, but not factual based

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

8/1/2016 11:16:23 am

J. Jovan Philyaw is a legal expert in the field of being an off-brand David Hatcher Childress.

Jim

8/1/2016 12:02:09 pm

Hutton, facts matter, you just twisted the facts, you read the report !

Dr. Brosseur " Thus the copper itself is also likely refined. Electrowinning of metals was first demonstrated in 1847, and the practice was first patented in 1865.4 Commercial plants for electrowinning of copper ore existed in 1870 in Wales and in the early 1880s in the USA.5 Thus, the likely actual earliest manufacture date for this brass is 1870-1880.

Wikipedia "Electrowinning is the oldest industrial electrolytic process. The English chemist Humphry Davy obtained sodium metal in elemental form for the first time in 1807 by the electrolysis of molten sodium hydroxide.

Electrorefining of copper was first demonstrated experimentally by Maximilian, Duke of Leuchtenberg in 1847.[2]

James Elkington patented the commercial process in 1865 and opened the first successful plant in Pembrey, Wales in 1870.[3] The first commercial plant in the United States was the Balbach and Sons Refining and Smelting Company in Newark, New Jersey in 1883."

Dr. Brosseau did not base her report on patent dating, she used a number of accurate factors in her report. You on the other hand seem to be using half truths regarding the rice patent. Was rice patented multiple times from 1997 onward as you claim ? How can there be a number of patents on rice at the same time ? Are the patents perhaps on numerous genetically modified strains of rice and not on normal rice at all ??? Do tell.

Jim

8/1/2016 01:00:14 pm

On second thought, please don't tell,, your rice patent has no bearing on anything. I only brought it up because of it's irrelevancy. However if you happen to be in a researching mood could you find me one item from the era you claim the sword to be that has 35% zinc in it, just 1 single item will do !

GEE

8/1/2016 02:06:32 pm

Hutton,

Not really sure you understand the meaning of a "White Paper". Here you go, my un-educated ass wants to teach you something...
A whitepaper is a persuasive, authoritative, in-depth report on a specific topic that presents a problem and provides a solution.

Marketers create whitepapers to educate their audience about a particular issue or explain and promote a particular methodology. They're advanced problem-solving guides. Not sure if you "Made a funny" comment on a white paper and is not factual based.

Lets start from the basics, and then start over.

Rudes rerum

8/1/2016 11:23:55 am

You're correct I have gotten slow over time but eating good food makes you that way sometimes, I am assuming you wouldn't possibly be calling someone else "slow" as in mentally since you can't even recall what you yourself said to the public and end up contradicting what you said only a couple days later.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 11:36:42 am

Rudes and Grunt, the replies you both post show you cannot debate the real issues and facts. It is a common tactic to deflect, change the subject when people know the facts are not in their favor and they cannot prove their point. Would be willing to go head to head with any here in the field of published work and experience. But alas this forum is not one of people in the open, rather that of adults with childlike attitudes skilled in the art of misdirection. Enjoy your sand box, and the gift I left you in your sandbox, but this cat is on to bigger and better things.

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

8/1/2016 11:56:24 am

J. Jovan Philyaw takes great pride in defecating in playgrounds.

An Over-Educated Grunt

8/1/2016 12:19:46 pm

Tell you what. You want to know what our qualifications are and our positions on the facts? Okay.

I'm a licensed engineer in the state of Texas with an actual, non-honorary master's degree and eight peer-reviewed papers to my name, all published while I was still in school. Of that graduate work, roughly 75% was about scour, erosion, and weathering and 25% was archaeology and historic conservation. I spend pretty much all my free time fighting with swords, making things to fight with swords, or learning about fighting with swords. I've worked multiple actual archaeological digs, not treasure hunts. The Great Ziggurat of Ur used to be on my morning run route. In other words, I've seen the elephant you try to sell people as a sideshow barker. All of that uniquely positions me to call you a fake on a variety of levels. Where would you like me to start, with the sword you claim to be Roman but matches no known Roman artifact or style of manufacture? Your inability to publish to a deadline - which, when you charge money, is commonly called fraud? Your poorly constructed debate points? Your poor choice of tacticool wardrobe?

Summa: Phony on so many levels.

Only Me

8/1/2016 12:31:52 pm

I'm now convinced your punch drunk, Hutton. That's understandable, considering your arguments have been hit with so many lefts, they're begging for a right.

It's also a common tactic to project onto others, as you're doing. It isn't helping you.

Run along now, CueCat, to pretend there *are* "bigger and better things."

Denise

8/1/2016 03:03:40 pm

Over Educated Grunt,

Your creditionals are fascinating. What sort of swords do you fight with? I wish I lived close, my husband makes swords, yet we don't know how to use them.

I can't even find a fencing instructor in my neck of the woods.

An Over-Educated Grunt

8/2/2016 09:28:32 am

Denise - Society for Creative Anachronism heavy combat. Joke is that heavy fighters use real armor and fake swords, light fighters use real swords and no armor. For safety reasons SCA got out of live steel sometime in the last thirty years for heavy combat (probably at the same time they insisted on face protection). Nowadays steel swords in SCA are only for dress-up and use as tourney prizes. Since plenty of medieval figures were seriously injured or killed in tournaments I'm fine with the additional safety precautions, but it does mean we can only do approximations of the original.

One of those approximations, though, is precisely why a cast sword is a stupid idea. Swords get loaded at pretty much all points along their length. Cast objects are less homogeneous than forged objects, so if there's an impurity, it stays and doesn't get pounded and redistributed like it would in a forged item. Wrong loading on that flaw and you have two pieces of sword.

On a happier note, between your NPS background and sword-making, you guys sound all sorts of interesting. My wife's first job was working at Olympic and I got hooked on the park system when we lived right outside Petersburg NBP.

Denise

8/4/2016 11:20:14 am

Hey again Grunt,

Used to do SCA a loong time ago as an archer, it was fun we actually were merchants at the Pennsic Wars for a couple of years. Probably the most popular item we sold were remote controlled "plague rats". But we now stick to reenacting 16th Spanish, 17th century English Civil War, and American Revolutionary war.

I got started early with the NPS and was one of the first women allowed on a cannon crew. Since then got certified as a National Black Powder Safety Officer. That was fun training, we got to live fire muskets and cannon (too bad the military range we were on had targets out of our range).

You are right about cast swords, just doesn't work. While there are many types of metals or alloys that can be used to make a blade (mild steel, hard steel, folded steel ie. Damascus) it needs to be forged not cast. As far as I know, no real fighting blade is a single piece of anything, it has many components that are that were made by different types of craftsman, then assembled. Hubby jokes how he does the job of the blade smith; the artisans who made the guards pommels(which better balance the blade or else), hilt, and grips; and then the leather worker to make the scabbard. He also makes early guns.

Is there a way to PM you?

Sticker

8/1/2016 12:05:36 pm

(Reposting because for some reason, my last post did not allow replies)

Hutton, I suppose if your intention was to be cryptic, the phrase "from the ground" could theoretically inspire slightly different interpretations, but you also clearly say in the recording that you are planning to "pull these bones out." What about that part? I don't think any reasonable person could interpret that in a way that does not involve disturbing/removing the bones from their current position at the site.

Also, it doesn't matter legally whether it's a purposeful burial or the result of someone dying in the wilderness and nature taking its course. What matters is that they are (or you at least currently believe them to be) human bones at an "unknown" (unreported) site that, judging from your own words, you are evidently planning on pulling out of the ground. Knowingly disturbing human remains (whether on public or private land) instead of reporting them to the proper authorities is a pretty big no-no in this country (in some places an automatic felony, and in others it could be a felony or a misdemeanor depending on the severity of the disturbance).

I also feel the need to mention the "native" issue again, as I have seen you repeatedly imply that the bones are not or may not be Native American and therefore the laws surrounding native bones do not apply. The problem is, that determination cannot legally be made by you or I, regardless of whatever reasons we may have to believe that they belong to ancient European travelers or settlers or anyone else. It's my understanding that a state entity, such as the state archaeologist, is required to make that determination and deal with NAGPRA and any repatriation/removal/reburial of the remains. It isn't up to individual members of the public to make the determination of ancestry, so there is no way that you can make a definitive statement one way or the other about the ethnic origin of the remains in those photographs --- and certainly not one that would absolve you of the responsibility of reporting them, or at the very least, respectfully leaving them undisturbed.

Reply

Sticker

8/1/2016 12:16:09 pm

Additionally, I think the reason listeners get the impression that these "giant" bones are probably Native American is that, judging by his words in the recording, Scott Wolter seems to believe that they probably are.

Just before the discussion on the photographs begins (if needed, I can go back and find the timecode), he tells us that the fact that academics and others claim that alleged giant bones are Native American is "not a surprise to me, and quite frankly, many of them, if not most of them, probably are, if not all of them.”

Reply

Thomas Schroeder

8/1/2016 02:08:36 pm

Agree. (BTW, the comments left by HP in this thread are fascinating. I have never seen anything like it. For a while I thought the comments were consistent with intoxication, but they continued for longer than I would generally think a person can stay intoxicated).

At any rate, here is what we certainly have: SW and HP make remarkable claims on SoundCloud about what seemed to be a burial of human remains. Then HP regularly remarks here as though he is dumbfounded that folks concluded, from what he and SW said, that the two were planning on digging up bones that they believed to be human in the absence of third party professionals and without any permission other than that granted by the land owners. Now, even if all those interpretations are complete misunderstandings by the listeners of the SoundCloud podcast, as HP has subsequently either implied if not stated, it was and still is a very reasonable conclusion to draw from the conversation. Honestly, I don't even know what to make of the list of 8 things he offers that could also mean "from the ground" since not only are at least 7 (if not all 8) of them not what he is dealing with, but it would not change anything anyway if those locations contain human remains. It is the remains that is pertinent, not the definition of what contains them.

HP goes on to ask folks at least 10 times something to the effect of (though the first sentence is not a direct quote); <You think I am doing something improper with human remains?> "Where did you get that idea?" Well, we got the idea from the statements made by SW and HP during the SoundCloud conversation. Why is that so hard to comprehend? (Rhetorical question though I believe my reply button will be enabled (lol) since this comment will be nested only one tier from the root rather than the maximum of two tiers.)

Reply

Sticker

8/1/2016 02:54:46 pm

Remember, don't call it a burial! (Not that it matters, so long as it is a site containing what they identify as human remains.)

Thomas Schroeder

8/1/2016 03:41:32 pm

Yep, I get it. I'll say "seemed to be a burial" and HP will ignore the word "seemed" and use his left hand to post 8 things that could contain bones that aren't burials in order to expose my laughable lack of logic. He'll do this while using his right hand to sustain his status as a top 50 inventor in the world.

It would seem (doh, there is non-authoritative word again) that HP is the type of man capable of pleasuring himself with both hands.

John (the other one)

8/1/2016 09:48:21 pm

Thomas Schroeder: Interesting I also thought his comments particularly on Friday were like he was drunk or incensed. He went off rails. He definitely has a specific pattern normally.

GEE

8/1/2016 02:20:18 pm

Sticker, I got caught up in his mess. He is the one who spoke about it, he alone and Scott fell right into it with Huttons Question/Answer .. I

I have never seen Jason write about anything that wasn't factual., he just cant make this stuff up. This was Huttons way of getting us off track, belittle all of us and Jason, and make him self King again. Its called Narcissistic personality disorder, it is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism. ... and there you have it, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer Phylaw

Reply

Gina Stalker

8/1/2016 04:24:36 pm

Gina are you not the Oak Island Stalker of Pulitzer? Seems you say this stuff on all the forums. Are you not the same person?

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 04:37:20 pm

Sticker, you are making up facts to present your case. Neither I, or Scott said they were native. Jason said they were native. Next, we are fully schooled in the various LAWS and no one, certainly not use said...as you put it... """imply that the bones are not or may not be Native American and therefore the laws surrounding native bones do not apply."""" that is YOUR quote. The laws are as follows: (1) when human remains are found, depending on the jurisdiction; then the local Sheriff or policing authorities must be called - that is the law. NOT an Archaeologist to be called in, but the policing authorities. Then and only then are the bones to be moved and the local coroner is to establish age and if possible cause of death. At that time, if deemed old or of great age, the State is notified and the State Archaeologist may or may not come inspect the bones or send someone to inspect said bones. That IS IF there is not an Archaeologist on site (and there will be). The process is to determine IF THEY ARE HUMAN to begin with and NOT mastodon such as Jason suggests (and many of you as well). Therefore BY LAW, one is able - with or without - to look, inspect, document, remove and shift in order to ascertain IF said remains are human. In most instances, this comes along with finding cranial, jaw, teeth and such features. Therefore, in order to call human, one has the legal right to inspect to see if said are human and not cow or in this case mastodon bones. In our case, we along with our archaeologist(s) (as in several) will look at anything which is presented in an effort to decide IF they are human and in fact at the point in the process they are determined to be human, then OUR ARCHAEOLOGY team already on site and under contract will file a report with the proper reporting agency. At that time THEY, the proper authorities, will have the right to do as they see fit. Of course, the medical examiner who is ON SITE for this project, along with the forensic pathologist will more than likely- at the same time- report these bones are of ancient age since ALL testing will be done immediate AND ON SITE. See, when you jump the gun folks, you shoot yourself with your short sightedness and Jason got each of you riled up. FACT IS, we are light years ahead of you, LIGHT YEARS!

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 04:37:55 pm

To ALL regarding the digging of BONES.... each of you are making up facts to present your case. Neither I, or Scott said they were native. Jason said they were native. Next, we are fully schooled in the various LAWS and no one, certainly not use said...as you put it... """imply that the bones are not or may not be Native American and therefore the laws surrounding native bones do not apply."""" that is YOUR quote. The laws are as follows: (1) when human remains are found, depending on the jurisdiction; then the local Sheriff or policing authorities must be called - that is the law. NOT an Archaeologist to be called in, but the policing authorities. Then and only then are the bones to be moved and the local coroner is to establish age and if possible cause of death. At that time, if deemed old or of great age, the State is notified and the State Archaeologist may or may not come inspect the bones or send someone to inspect said bones. That IS IF there is not an Archaeologist on site (and there will be). The process is to determine IF THEY ARE HUMAN to begin with and NOT mastodon such as Jason suggests (and many of you as well). Therefore BY LAW, one is able - with or without - to look, inspect, document, remove and shift in order to ascertain IF said remains are human. In most instances, this comes along with finding cranial, jaw, teeth and such features. Therefore, in order to call human, one has the legal right to inspect to see if said are human and not cow or in this case mastodon bones. In our case, we along with our archaeologist(s) (as in several) will look at anything which is presented in an effort to decide IF they are human and in fact at the point in the process they are determined to be human, then OUR ARCHAEOLOGY team already on site and under contract will file a report with the proper reporting agency. At that time THEY, the proper authorities, will have the right to do as they see fit. Of course, the medical examiner who is ON SITE for this project, along with the forensic pathologist will more than likely- at the same time- report these bones are of ancient age since ALL testing will be done immediate AND ON SITE. See, when you jump the gun folks, you shoot yourself with your short sightedness and Jason got each of you riled up. FACT IS, we are light years ahead of you, LIGHT YEARS!

Reply

Andy White

8/1/2016 04:47:53 pm

So you instructed the landowners who sent you the photo (which you determined to your satisfaction was of human remains) to contact the sheriff?

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 06:27:40 pm

Andy, for your information. The photos show what could easily be a human bone, but the size of it caused the local sheriff to poo poo it. Was too big. Thus case closed. Path open, thus why we are brining in our own research and medical team. Cant force the locals to deal with now can you. All bases covered.

Andy White

8/1/2016 06:50:28 pm

Ah . . . So now we have learned something. Youu and Wolter satisfied yourselves (based on a photo) that it is a human bone, but the local authorities satisfied themselves that it isn't. Therefore you argue that you have a green light to do whatever you want? Is that accurate? Perhaps if this photo is so convincing you should let the world see it. I would be willing to bet you were not looking at a genuine photo of a giant human bone. You did, after all, identify brass on your "Roman sword" as gold.

Thomas Schroeder

8/1/2016 07:06:25 pm

Andy, this is certainly the key. We have two things going on here

1) Reality. The very large bones are going to prove to be not human and therefore any activity at the site is a non issue. Heck, even if they insist the large bones are from a giant human the fact that they aren't still exonerates them from actually doing wrong.
2) Sensationalism and bad science. This is necessary to satisfy the followers of alternative history.

At the end of the excavation these gentlemen will have committed multiple offenses #2 without ever touching a human bone.

Hutton - ANDY THIS IS FOR YOU

8/1/2016 07:27:34 pm

Andy, this is for you and Jason I guess, but this may help. As each of you relish in those who make snarky or crude comment about my work or Scotts work and you might even like that say "you're just in it for the bucks" or so on. BUT YOU ARE MISSING THE REAL POINT> of this whole exercise. You see, we stay out in social media and talking about history and getting the truth out for many reasons, but the main one is (1) people already fully believe and acknowledge that history has issues and much is written wrong. But here is what you miss and this is the most important. We are creating a path to US. Why? The discoveries these days is NOT going to be made by an archaeologists or anthropologists. There is no exploration money for them. They are locked to their desks. BUT, however we create a path to US and we have the TIME, MONEY and EXPERTISE to do the work, thus when someone finds an amazing find on their land, they CALL US, not the system. And as such, we come into it first and WE GET TO HIRE THE ACADEMIC TEAMS. There is the single biggest point. YOU and your fellow take to attacking us, when yet we are your future and publishing salvation as archaeologists and anthropologists. The finds come to us and we fund the finds, science and documentation. BUT you can never be on that "who should we call to work with us? list. Why? You choose to attack instead of seeing us as the ally and funnel for finds and funds we are. Thus as we make these thing public the better way, there are other archaeologist and anthropologists who DO NOT attack us and sit and wait and work with us in a friendly manner. It is those people who will go down with huge discoveries in academic circles. But it is because they embraced us and worked with us. You are missing the real ship by attacking, when you should be thankful THE PUBLIC comes to us and we are the new gatekeepers. You are playing the wrong cards. Accept us for what we are. Not the replacement for archaeology and anthropology, but the ones who network the finds and bring the funds and we all do it together.

Thomas Schroeder

8/1/2016 07:42:38 pm

I hope Andy and/or Jason get you to name a single scientist that made a "great" discovery because they worked with you and/or your resources. I read about our discoveries and the fact is those discoveries are being made at simple sites like Burrell Orchard under the slow process of tried and true methods. "Great" discoveries is what we learn collectively from the sum information of all of the individual discoveries. There is no short cut that money will fund, IMO. I am the "the pubic", and I know how to filter my information.

Andy White

8/1/2016 08:09:54 pm

Hutton,

You're ducking the questions again. This is nothing new from you -- anyone who pays attention has seen it many times.

You are way off in your summation, as usual. Your comments do not match reality. To those of us who have followed you, this is no surprise. Not only have you not "discovered" anything of importance, I have yet to hear you even articulate a definition of "science" that is anywhere near correct. I have yet to see any indication that you understand even the most basic principles of the things you claim to have expertise in. You make grand pronouncements and you don't follow through. Remember your claims about the "smoking gun" Minoan artifacts? Remember the "Indiana mummy"? Remember the "100% confirmed Roman sword"? It's all just a big joke. The thing that worries me about this one is your apparent belief that you have a green light to excavate something. As a professional archaeologist (i.e., someone who actually has the qualifications to excavate something), that is very troubling.

I have been doing real archaeology for a long time, and I will still be doing it long after people have stopped paying attention to you and you've changed careers again.

My prediction is that nothing will come of any of this: there will be no "excavation" and we'll never actually see the photographs of these alleged giant bones. I would love for you to prove me wrong on the latter (but not the former), but I think it's more likely that you'll just move on to some other story once the attention over this one dies down and you realize that you're in over your head.

Thomas Schroeder

8/1/2016 05:32:18 pm

This is funny to me because, though it reads like a very reasonable approach, it does not sound at all like bold talk on the podcast.

Perhaps one could replace "you jump the gun folks, blah blah blah" with "you caused me to research best practices when human remains may have been found and to restate my entire approach in light of that research so that I can pretend that was my plan all along and then say 'you jumped the gun folks' ".

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 05:42:32 pm

Thomas, I wrote the best practices law book for this field and that is why it is so funny people assuming something illegal. No one is paying attention to facts. Now watch the nuts come out for this one post.

Andy White

8/1/2016 06:23:39 pm

Did you tell the landowners to contact the sheriff?

Thomas Schroeder

8/1/2016 06:35:11 pm

Thank you, but certainly you don't actually mean that there is an entire field dedicated to what citizens should do when finding bones, possibly human, large or otherwise? Perhaps you used the term "field" off the cuff and actually meant "such occurrences".

At any rate, what is the book? I am aware that you published an indexed compilation of laws, by state, applicable to finding "treasure". Of course, here the issue is potential human remains not treasure and "cacheology" is not actually a recognized scientific discipline/field. (though I think it is a fair term coined for limited use).

If there is another book that applies better to human remains, or even to actually scientific fields, can you mention the name? Thank you.

BTW, there is nothing at all "funny" or, as I would say, "odd" that someone might assume that a person intends to act outside the law simply because that person compiled a book of laws. Such a compilation only demonstrates that the person likely knows what the laws are, in general, not that the person intends to steadfastly adhere to them. Right? Again, the podcast conversation has a brazen shoot-from-the-hip tone to it that sounds like two guys, who share an inherent distrust of academia, willing and ready to investigate bones according to their methods. That is why the statement above reads to me like a prudent change in course rather than a revelation of what was already planned.

John (the other one)

8/1/2016 09:55:06 pm

Hutton,

No...you still haven't written a law or a law book. You may have written a compilation of laws written by other people. The jury's out but it definitively does not make you any sort of law expert.

Also, what law schools and courses use it? You said it was a law school text right?

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 04:39:19 pm

AND FOR EACH OF YOU and JASON --- as his former headline stated and his URL still states and that is what you guys over reacted to>>>>>>>> /wolter-and-pulitzer-announce-plans-to-rob-presumed-native-american-grave-to-search-for-giants

Reply

Hutton FOR JIM

8/1/2016 04:54:47 pm

Jim, download the Oak Island Roman Sword report and behold 372 items with MORE THAN 35% zinc in national museums and collections certified and peer reviewed. Thus, get the report.

Reply

Jim

8/1/2016 05:29:59 pm

Hutton, In downloading the report do I have to provide you with my email address and/or any other personal information ?
I do not ask for 372 items, would you please provide me with 1 single item made of brass or bronze PROVEN to be 35% zinc and proven to be 2000+ years old. Easy peasy, with 372 items it should be a peace of cake ! That is my challenge to you.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 05:40:49 pm

Jim, no need for email, we posted it FREE on facebook, so my page (which is public) or any of our groups. Have at it.

Jim

8/1/2016 05:51:14 pm

Well thank you Hutton, but just to save me some time going through the hundreds and hundreds of items I'm sure you have listed, could you just name one item ? Come on Hutton help a buddy out here !

Hutton FOR JIM

8/1/2016 06:29:54 pm

I am not here to do ones homework. Did the 200 plus page report. Now is the time for you to take in the report and see for yourself

Reply

Jim

8/1/2016 07:01:18 pm

Hutton, Now I am feeling all chastised and rebuked, somewhat saddened but also a little confused. It seems like such a very small ask from one fellow seeker of the truth to another, can I not appeal to your magnanimous nature to grant me this one small boon. It is such a small thing to you but would help me out immensely. Thank you very much in advance for this great favor to me !

Gina Torreso, at the very least is you could spell my fathers last name correct. Sheesshhh

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

8/2/2016 10:12:48 am

J. Jovan Philyaw is very concerned with spelling, which is why he wrote the book on it: "Dikshunery, or How To Find Wurdz Good In All 50 States."

GEE GINA

8/1/2016 06:04:42 pm

Was it the Narcissistic behavior? Or the instructions on how to create a white paper? You can copy+paste, I don't mind.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 06:34:11 pm

Gina, the only nerve you have ever struck with me is how could such an attractive woman, have no life, to the extent where daily and now in over 11 different forums, stalk me and my work? How is it on one hand you beg me and others to be let back in the groups and then in the very same breath you post your gunk on other groups. I can only assume it is a mental thing. What I suspect is since you do have beauty on your side, that you are more than used to getting your way and when you were booted, banned and rejected by me for what was on the inside of you, well seems you could not handle it. Do you realize it has been well over 100 weeks and running that you have posted something negative and name calling about me and my work. You won the part. You get to play Glen Close's part, but sorry no rabbit dinner and I am really thankful we never met in person first. I could only imagine what it would be like now. Yes, thats the nerve you have hit. What a total waste of outward beauty.

Reply

Clint Knapp

8/1/2016 08:00:19 pm

When all else fails, stoop to sexism. Way to go, Jovan. Really.

John

8/1/2016 08:15:43 pm

@ Clint

What do you expect? Hutton Pulitzer is a far right wing asshole, so sexism comes naturally to him amongst other things.

An Over-Educated Grunt

8/2/2016 10:10:42 am

J. Jovan Philyaw has a long history of blowing things out of proportion. Fortunately his amorous interests come with patch kits.

David Cusack

8/4/2016 06:42:13 pm

Hutton, you are a pathetic misogynist.

Sticker

8/1/2016 06:53:03 pm

Hutton, you should know better at this point than to claim I am fabricating quotes from you --- on 7/30 at 12:41 and again at 12:49 you call the bones "not native" in your comments above. How is that not you saying that the bones are non-native and thus implying that laws about native bones do not apply? I have many flaws, but knowingly misrepresenting/fabricating information in a debate is not one of them.

Going in the opposite direction, I did not say that you or Scott Wolter definitively identified the bones as Native American. That would be a hard claim for me to make, given that one of my main points earlier was that neither of you can make a legal determination of ancestry, and also that, as I just explained, you yourself say they are "not native" in your comments above! What I did say, however, was that Scott Wolter seems to believe that there is a strong likelihood that alleged giant bones are Native American, based on his remark at around 13 min. 50 sec. in that "many of them, if not most of them, probably are, if not all of them.” Once again, just quoting from your own recording.

As for the legal stuff, the laws for what to do when you find human remains are different from state to state. Originally, since Minnesota was the only place mentioned in the recording, I assumed that that was where the photographed remains were as well. The law there is very clear about the necessity of contacting the authorities so that the state archaeologist can take over, and about it being a felony to disturb any human remains on public or private property (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=307.08). Of course, since none of us know the location for sure (and you have since suggested in a previous comment that the location may not even be in North America, if so, rendering it rather irrelevant to the ‘America Unearthed’ episode you were ostensibly inspired by), we listeners are at an obvious disadvantage in debating the specifics of this aspect of the issue. However, if you are in fact conducting this investigation in coordination with the appropriate authorities, with the medical examiner present, and a team of professional archaeologists doing the actual excavation, it will bring all of us much relief --- but raises another intriguing question.

Did you misrepresent your plans for this investigation? You must admit that the officially-sanctioned excavation you are now describing is VERY different from the way you portray this endeavor in your recording. You can't blame people for gathering the impression from your words (many of which I have quoted with timecode in previous comments above) that you were planning on going to an unreported site and disturbing human remains yourselves. I think the reason listeners get the impression that you are talking about an unreported site unknown to authorities is that Scott Wolter tells us at about 18 min. 17 sec. in that “this is not in your typical situation where archaeologists have control of the site; this is a site that is completely unknown.” This makes it sound as though you will be investigating the site yourselves without archaeologists present, a site that no one else knows about --- a thrilling secret that may reveal information never before documented, and with which no archaeologist will be able to interfere.

Another reason listeners got the idea that you were planning on going to this unknown site without involving any of the relevant authorities is that you repeatedly discuss how you believe the authorities/archaeological/academic community are involved in a conspiracy to suppress evidence of giants. For example, at about 16 min. 49 sec. in, you tell us that: “A lot of these [alleged giant bones] have been found by people, but when they feel they’re doing the right thing and calling the local authorities, and state archaeologists and some of these others get involved, literally everything disappears.” Doesn’t this make it sound like calling the authorities will likely lead to the remains being confiscated and covered up? Later, starting at around 1:04:35, you both discuss how you believe information about the remains of giants is being suppressed by an “official mandate,” “systemic whitewashing,” or a cover-up of “Biblical proportions,” perhaps because acknowledging the existence of such remains would prove the Bible accurate. From this, it sure doesn’t sound like you’re planning to involve the authorities. To be fair, Scott Wolter does mention at around 1:13:29 that he intends to “do things the right way” and “bring in the proper people to help us assess this,” but in light of all of the previous vilification of archaeologists in this episode, I took these unfortunately rather vague remarks to mean that you were planning on perhaps hiring some sort of non-academic “experts” to work with you on

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/1/2016 07:05:10 pm

Sticker, boy you make way way too many assumptions and there is no way to know ANY bones on the planet are native until testing. Its that simple. You cannot look at bones and tell ethnicity. Also, if you insert say NEVADA for Minnesota, or Washington State it does not make them or this project there. So you are wasting keystrokes. Again, your hiring of NON ACADEMIC people is just your assumption and a wrong one at that. Your head must hurt from all your assumptions. Yes, I stand behind totally wrong to not do investigative work first. And totally wrong to not document and make public FOR ALL. Too many have been scooped up and hidden. Thus, this one fellas we beat everyone to and the tides are about to change. But legal, professional, top notch and fully and over documented and then as the remains are taken away, the tests, footage, and incredible documentation can be shown and never be taken away. ITS A GAME CHANGER!!!

Reply

Jim

8/1/2016 07:55:52 pm

Quotes by Hutton

"Sticker, boy you make way way too many assumptions and there is no way to know ANY bones on the planet are native until testing. Its that simple. You cannot look at bones and tell ethnicity."

"Every comment here is based on what Jason insinuated and not fact or realities. (1) Not a grave (2) Not native (3) Not robbing (4) Does have archaeologist involved- many (5) Does have many scientists involved .... and,....."

D

8/1/2016 07:56:20 pm

It's not going to be a "GAME CHANGER" come on now, no doubt whatever it ends up being though (cow, pig, mastadon, human), you and Wolter will claim it's something it's not, claim it to be a "GAME CHANGER" and anyone who disagrees with you two, will just be, again, part of the academic cover-up that all the universities in the world seem to be a part of.

Also you did not write the "the best practices law book for this field". You wrote the best practices for all of archaeology? No archaeologist I know has ever heard of a best practices for all archaeology. Or did you mean you compiled a book with relevant state laws concerning historic material so that you and other "treasure hunters" can know when/how you can take artifacts without being penalized?

(part 2)
proving that the remains are those of giants. I can see now that he must have meant something different that changes the character of the whole endeavor.

So back to the question --- are you now telling us that instead of independently investigating a secret site unknown to the authorities as you portrayed in your Soundcloud episode, you have in fact reported the site, notified the coroner and other relevant authorities, and are simply planning on overseeing and videotaping an excavation conducted by professional archaeologists --- the same people whom you previously stated are involved in a conspiracy to suppress information about giant remains?

Reply

Sticker

8/1/2016 07:40:32 pm

Hutton, I'm not entirely sure if you read all of my previous statement, as you seem to misunderstand some of my points. For example, Minnesota wasn't mentioned randomly. I explained why I mentioned Minnesota --- because it was the only location mentioned in the recording. Why would I or anyone think that my mentioning a different state would magically make the site there? Do you truly believe that that was my logic? Also, I explained the reason I thought that the "proper people" Wolter vaguely refers to might be some sort of non-academic giant experts. As it appears necessary, I'll give my reasoning again --- the repeated disdain and distrust that both of you expressed towards the academic community throughout this episode. Keep in mind also, that I admitted at the end of that paragraph that I must have been wrong about what he was talking about in light of new information. Do you truly not follow the flow of my reasoning, or did you just not read the entirety of what I wrote?

Additionally, what you are calling "assumptions" are actually either the inferences that I am trying to explain can be logically made from your own statements, or simply my paraphrasing/restatement of your own statements.

For example:

HP: "Not native."
Restatement - "HP has said the bones are not native."

HP: "Not native."
Inference - "Then NAGPRA would not apply."

Or:

SW: "This is an unknown site uncontrolled by archaeologists."
Restatement: "This site is unknown to the authorities."

SW: "This is an unknown site uncontrolled by archaeologists."
Inference: "They probably won't report the site themselves, either, since they don't seem to want to be interfered with by archaeologists."

There's a difference between coming to a logical conclusion based on evidence and making wild accusations and assumptions from thin air. If I had said, for example, that you were planning on selling the remains, that would be an unfair assumption without basis in anything you've said --- THAT would probably be libel! My restatements of and logical inferences based on your well-documented quotes are not the same thing.

The reasons that I have been framing my arguments this way are:

1. Since you have repeatedly accused us of reaching our conclusions about your plans for this excavation solely from Jason's article and not your own recorded words, I feel compelled to explain painstakingly how each of these conclusions can logically be reached using direct quotes from your recording. Are any of these still difficult to understand?

2. I resent being falsely accused of fabricating information/quotes, so I feel compelled to prove openly and clearly where each idea comes from.

Reply

Jim

8/2/2016 11:17:31 am

So to recap:
In that “this is not in your typical situation where archaeologists have control of the site; this is a site that is COMPLETLY UNKNOWN
The local law has been notified
They have assembled a large team of archaeologists, scientists, medical examiner etc.
They do not want to be hampered by a large team of archaeologists, scientists, medical examiner etc.
They are going to pull the bones out of the ground
They are not going to pull the bones out of the ground, they will scan them with a 3d scanner
It can't be determined if bones are native yet
Bones are not native
The bones are not in a grave
The bones are in a tomb
From a photo they know the bones are human
From a photo the sheriff says they are not human
The bones are not in North America
ALL testing will be done immediate AND ON SITE
The remains are then to be taken away

Thats about it, other than the insults, suing and general mayhem going on.

Reply

Sticker

8/2/2016 11:48:14 am

Jim, now my head IS starting to hurt! Another odd issue occurred to me as well after reading through some other comments that were posted while I was writing my last response ---

If the local sheriff dismissed the bones in the photograph as too big to possibly be human and therefore declined to get involved in the investigation (HP above says that instead they are bringing in "own research and medical team" instead), then why is the local medical examiner going to be there (as HP says he or she will be)? Is the medical examiner really required to attend the excavation of what the local authorities have already identified as non-human bones?

Reply

Jim

8/2/2016 07:18:50 pm

I believe the medical examiner will be there in case Pulitzers head explodes

Only Me

8/2/2016 12:03:44 pm

Thanks, Jim! That's why I became convinced Pulitzer was punch drunk. So many solid counter-arguments have left him dropping revisions of the same story all over the place.

Reply

Jim

8/2/2016 05:17:34 pm

Just a general comment, not aimed at anyone in in particular.
When a party or parties attempt to perpetrate a hoax, it is of extreme importance to have your alleged facts in order and well thought out before you attempt to take it to the public.

Under the impression

8/2/2016 09:40:15 pm

Aren't you all under the impression that this is the most epic meltdown evah??? This is highly entertaining!

Reply

Rudes rerum

8/2/2016 11:03:54 pm

I would like to know just cause I'm curious and it's obviously going over my head, what on earth is the motivation or gain for "covering up" these remains of giants?

Reply

Jim

8/3/2016 01:21:21 am

Well, if the dna from an American giant could be shown to originate in Europe, it would upset the current and accepted belief that Andre was the first European giant to have made it to the new world.

Reply

Jim

8/3/2016 01:54:18 am

Sorry I couldn't resist.
Its just a sensationalist ploy to tickle your curiosity, con men have been using forever.
"find out what they don't want you to know"
"what the government is keeping hidden from us,,,,,,"
"I have a secret that will blow your socks off,,,"

Reply

Sticker

8/3/2016 11:21:31 am

Towards the end of the episode (I think this part starts around 1:04:00), Pulitzer appears to put forth the theory that academics are suppressing information about the remains of giants lest it prove the Bible true. Wolter declines to wholeheartedly support this idea, but concedes vaguely that religion could have something to do with it. I don't think there are any other specific motives offered (other than their classic view of academia as an impermeable stone block of unchanging dogma intent on crushing "dangerous" new ideas). I might be wrong, but right now I don't think I can handle listening to it all over again.

Reply

Rudes rerum

8/2/2016 11:19:07 pm

That you are so sure is going on

Reply

Rudes rerum

8/3/2016 02:24:54 am

No worries it was hilarious

Reply

Spark

8/3/2016 09:52:11 am

Well after a almost a year of taking a step back from the shitshow called Hutton. A good friend posted Jason's link to me. Thankfully I am already aware of the Bigot and Racist Hutton Is.
However I do believe that the only Bones that are out of the ground right this minute, which shouldn't be, are the Bones of Hutton's Skull. He's a Bonehead plain n simple.
Hutton crawl back under the rock you came out from!! We'll all help with the shoveling once you're there! Maybe in 4000 years, someone who has an education better than you. Will dig you up and proclaim you a Bonehead too.

To the Educated people of the room: Thanks for the laughs. 4hrs of reading his rhetoric about nothing has been amusing to say the least. Same shit different year Hutton! Ha!

Hey Guys, I got Andy up from 20 readers a few hours ago to now over 44. Lets NOW get Jason over his all time record and hit 400 comments here! Yeah, public service to the limited and needy Lets all do our part.

Reply

Only Me

8/5/2016 04:19:08 pm

Public service announcement for one Hutton Pulitzer. The all-time comment record on this blog is, currently, 1795 comments on a post about...

wait for it...

wait for it...

Scott Wolter! Yes, Hutton, your business partner is more of a draw than you!

Ken

8/8/2016 09:32:43 am

"A self absorbed person only can see the faults of others but they are often color blind their own. "

denise

8/4/2016 01:36:43 pm

:-)

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/5/2016 03:31:22 pm

Chant it now! 7 More to Go (not a 7th must die) 7 more to go,,,,7 more to go and Jason breaks his all time record in comment. Come on guys.....

Reply

Raparee

8/5/2016 03:50:40 pm

I'm sure Jason must appreciate all the traffic you have driven to his site with your semi-coherent numb-nuttery.

J Jovan Philyaw Hutton Pulitzer, his name is my name too. Whenever I go out the people always shout:

Reply

Assonaut Exaterressial

8/8/2016 05:43:33 am

I got a FEVR. And the only thing that's gonna cure it is more cowbell.

Reply

Micah E

8/5/2016 03:57:28 pm

Interesting developments. Thanks Jason, and Andy for the updates on your blogs!

Count me as skeptical at this point. But, If such excavations are conducted lawfully, have the archaeologist on-site be sure and measure the long bones, as well the skeleton in-situ. Femur, tibia lengths etc. are very good at predicting stature when correct formulae are applied. Not exactly rocket science when done professionally.

I suppose when independent researchers (such as myself) do amass 1,500+ old newspaper reports online, of said giant skeletons etc., the net effect is that it does tend to inspire film crews, and some adventurists (with wide ranging agendas) to go out and attempt at archaeological digs to try and validate the corporeal reality or non-reality of said giants. Because of the serious laws in place, I do not endorse in any way shape or form such excavations unless they are conducted in accordance with state and federal law. Especially because of how many ancient Native burial mounds had been plundered in the past 200 years by crude archaeological practices, preserving what does exist is essential.

In my opinion, enough information & artifacts exists in museum exhibits, historical documents, archaeological reports, and old journals to conclude that tall people- sometimes very, very tall people others may refer to as "giants", did and do occasionally exist on planet earth. People as high as 7 feet, or more. I think the tallest irrefutable human beings have ranged from 8 feet to about 9 feet high, without shoes. (15 of which have been documented in modern times). Usually a medical disorder is the underlying cause of such height, although genetic factors may also play a part in both pathological and non-pathological extreme stature. But having put in several years of research on this subject in a hobby capacity, I tend to agree now more than ever with Jason Colavito and others, that humans on average were a few inches shorter in the past and that giants like a "Goliath" in the Biblical narrative was more on the order of 6-1/2 to 7+ feet (as the Dead Sea Scrolls now indicate). Even the excavations of the first Philistine cemetery from Ashkelon recently, produced perhaps 1 male skeleton that was 6 feet tall, out of 200 odd burials. The aggregate mean average height for men of Canaan / Syria was approximately 1.65 meters from the bronze age into the last few centuries, or 5'5 to 5 ft 6, and weighing 130 -140 lbs , or about the average height of a modern Iraqi male. In the days of ancient warfare, before bullets, an outstandingly tall and well built person 6 ft 6 or 7 feet high may have been percieved as or was indeed a greater threat on the battle field and in single combat contests (as Goliath is referred to in the book of Samuel, a "champion"). There is a good article written in 1999 by Adrienne Mayor, addressing the potential reality of such giants in antiquity: http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Mayor%20-%20Giants%20in%20Ancient%20Warfare.pdf

Reply

GEE GINA

8/5/2016 04:10:38 pm

Hey Hutton, just incase you didn't notice, every post on this blog are Jason's and Andy's followers. Your posts and Bonnie's are the only "Naysayers" here. What say you???

Reply

RiverM

8/5/2016 05:08:49 pm

I wouldn't know JHP existed if it wasn't for SwordGate. Becoming known for hyping a modern brass tourist tchotchke as a Roman artifact is not very aspirational.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/5/2016 05:52:38 pm

RiverM, I am on your cell phone every where you go. BTW, what was the date the University put on the sword?

Hutton Pulitzer

8/5/2016 05:51:28 pm

Here is what I say Gina Toreso. I made you important, I made people read you. I gave you purpose and YES you fit right in here. But for me, I have no fear wading in with the haters. I understand is it all over jealously and I make them important and matter in their small worlds. But, for you, its sad. You have beauty and skill sets obviously, but you're deeply ugly on the inside where it matters.

Reply

Jim

8/5/2016 11:46:08 pm

Hutton; I think you are mistaking what people are saying about you, they are not saying you are important, they are saying you are impotent !
Of course only your doctor knows for sure.

Peter

8/8/2016 09:30:17 am

.... putting your inferior shadow on some one else ..... CLASSIC HUTTON PULITZER ! Remember kiddies .... " A man's attire is only an outward projection of his inward self."

Jim

8/6/2016 12:01:58 am

Gena; In Huttons world, posters and content do not matter ! It's all about the post count !,,,,, well that and getting attention.

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/5/2016 05:51:52 pm

Yeah Jason, you broke 400! Awesome

Reply

GEE GINA

8/5/2016 07:00:47 pm

Hutton, okay you want to believe you gave me purpose in life? Fine. Then I might as well say oak island gave you your purpose. Without OI, I wouldn't even know who you were. I doubt I would of ever read any of your books... so opportunity. Unfortunately, I'm not cashing in on our relationship. Are you cashing in on your relatiinship with the Island? I look forward to your tweets and periscopes of season 4 and your facebook posts. #JasonCalovitoandAndyWhiteWarriorsfortherealtruth See you around Hutton

Reply

Hutton Pulitzer

8/7/2016 11:15:20 pm

Gina before history channel approached me I already had over 300 history lost treasure books published and over 1000 hours of TV work. So your point does not make sense. Sorry.

Reply

Only Me

8/8/2016 02:35:19 am

"So your point does not make sense."

Of course it does. She's saying she didn't know you existed until your appearance on Curse of Oak Island. This isn't surprising; the majority of people would only know you for CueCat and nothing else. You simply aren't as famous as you believe.

Thomas Schroeder

8/10/2016 11:48:03 am

Only Me, I agree. It is not the fault of decent society that his greatly esteemed works have gone unnoticed.

This man created templates for treasure hunting books by state. It could accurately be described as a catalog that has been sliced up and packaged in different manners in order to produce multiple individual titles. The most telling aspect, to me, is the fact that the author had point them out multiple times to the readers of this blog.

I just dawned on my that HP probably sees himself as a modern day Ernest Hemingway. I see him as the next Shamwow pitchman.

Thomas Schroeder

8/10/2016 11:49:42 am

*dawned on me*

Hutton Pulitzer

8/5/2016 07:01:06 pm

BTW, Jason, thank you - your referring link is now up to 30 plays. Thank you very much for those plays and listening to our work. every play counts.

Reply

Only Me

8/5/2016 08:43:49 pm

"First Kudos to Jason for the excellent use of provocative headlines to get people to read a non-story."

"You changed the headline which was libel BUT you DID NOT change the last sentence re: the live robbing of a Native American grave on video to 'prove' that giants existed...... thus it still exists live and damaging each day."

"But when you write to professionally discredit with the use of implying crimes and such you become open for legal issues."

VS

"Peter, not too sure of your comment but the plays are pretty even daily and today alone has gone up another 180 the last hour. So... not sure what your point is... maybe Jason generated all the traffic?"

"BTW, Jason, thank you - your referring link is now up to 30 plays. Thank you very much for those plays and listening to our work. every play counts."

Seems to me you benefitted from Jason, Hutton. That really weakens your "case".

Reply

Jim

8/5/2016 11:37:01 pm

I asked you some questions you still haven't answered;
This is what you said about the sword

"What is this special quality? The sword has an ancient ocean navigational device built into it which causes the sword to point true north. Such magnetic qualities are only found in authentic items of antiquity, not cast iron or manufactured stone replicas."

Being an accomplished explorer I assume you understand the proper use of a compass and the fact that it points magnetic north, not true north. I also assume you understand the need for varying degrees of declination to find an accurate reading of true north.
Given this I have four questions for you.

1- How is this sword unique in all of history to be the only item that can break the laws of magnetism and and point to true north ??

2- How is it that Dr. Brosseau, an accomplished professional could have missed a lodesone, magnatite or other iron body in the sword large enough to have it point to,,,um,,,,er,,,,,true north??

3-How did you come to the conclusion that this sword had these properties??

4- Did your xrf results show this lodestone or high iron content in the sword??

Reply

Kathy

8/8/2016 09:23:28 am

I am sure the number of fks given are still @ 0 . I have never seen a grown man act so childish in my whole life! You are in 'fact' your own worst enemy here. ..cause facts do matter, evidence is in your own actions bud.

Reply

GEE GINA

8/5/2016 07:55:03 pm

Hutton if it makes you feel better, I also follow Giorgio Tsoukalos, Scott Wolter, Erich Von Daniken, David Hatcher Childress.. Hutton Pulitzer.. See the Pattern here?

Reply

Rudes Rerum

8/6/2016 12:15:11 am

This has to be some of the most entertaining stuff I've seen in a while. What do you know it's all thanks to the incompetence of one j. Hutton pulitzer

Reply

GEE GINA

8/10/2016 09:39:11 am

Jason I reported that user, on google. S.M. Raen.. the author of the link that he posted.

Reply

David Childress' Neckfat

8/11/2016 01:50:07 pm

What have we learned here? Well:
1. Wolter and Hutton Pulitzer plan a grave robbing expedition.
2. Regardless of land ownership or title, their intent and method in dealing with human (even if they are BIG human) remains is in fact illegal under federal and most state guidelines.
3. They have a low rent chatbot triggered by the words "graverobbing" and "illegal".
4. I got the ideas and information to form the conclusions above from Hutton Pulitzer and Wolter's very own media postings.
5. They do not understand the laws regarding libel nor how they may or may not be applied in a public electronic forum.
6. Hutton Pulitzer and Wolter share a deep and abiding interest in high school age males, some people have said.
7. Come at me, bros!

Reply

Courageous.Colavito.hahaha

8/12/2016 05:28:27 pm

So... in your bold-faced introduction, you announce that you were misrepresenting facts about someone.... who then threatened you with legal action of you didn't remove the 'lies'. You were FORCED to comply, and you act like you have scored a 'victory'!
Where is this delusion-inspired courage when you are labelled as a plagiarist? Or a liar? Or a coward?? You don't fight these accusations because they are TRUE!!! haha.
Yer funny, Poindexter!

Facts which completely dispute Colavito's crap can be found here:

http://chronologiesmasterlist.blogspot.ca/

Reply

Assonaut Exaterressial

8/12/2016 05:41:53 pm

The chronologies blogspot is a collection of news stories with no opinions on whether they are true or not. Just that they were reported. Jason has neither plaigarized nor stolen from it. I read most of it and saw no similarity to Jason's blog.

I read Jason's headlines as satire mostly. I thought it only prudent or genial for Jason to edit the title because of poor Jovan's reaction (butt hurt) to it. Satire is protected by the first Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Liar, coward? Show us evidence of either. I hope school starts soon wherever you are from. Your seventh grade science teacher can explain evidence to you.

Reply

Rudes Rerum

8/12/2016 07:35:06 pm

Yet another self entitled human being who thinks they are enlightened and going on the offensive against Jason and to the defense of the self proclaimed "commander" and archeology "expert". Some day maybe you will actually have coherent thoughts come into that brain of yours.

Reply

Kathleen

8/19/2016 11:28:54 pm

Just posting to up the count. Seems to make JHP happy

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.